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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moneyrunner]

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?

They purchase these homes because they like them. I, personally, do not and you apparently don’t either, but that is what free choice is about. Differences in taste do not allow someone to burn someone else’s home down. By the way, I have toured homes like this and they are great looking inside.

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.

There is a vast difference between profit and profit margin. Tiffany has much higher margins than Wal Mart. A Rolex has a higher margin than a Timex. The question is what can people afford to buy and how many. Wal Mart did not get to be the biggest retailer in the world by maximizing margins but by getting adequate margins on huge volume.

The fact is, these houses are not even that high priced. Really expensive homes in that area start at $650,000 and easily exceed $1 million.

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

Actually, the desire to live as one with nature is typically found in the 18th century or later. Prior to that, people did not find “nature” romantic … they found it brutal. Only in the 18th century were non-aristocrats rich enough to consider the “natural” state exotic or desirable. Aristocrats were ahead of the general population in this; Marie Antoinette dressed up as a milkmaid before the French Revolution.

[montag813]

Meanwhile the ACLU sues the FBI for "spying" on ecoterrorists.

[rubofthebrush]

California Cravat..

[FierceDraka]

Remember these photographs the next time you are asked to donate money to an 'environmentalist' group.

Indeed!

So, these radical enviro-criminals just unleashed a few tons of carbon dioxide, cyanide gas, unburned hydrocarbons, and god knows what other greeenhouse and toxic gasses into the atmosphere - in order to save the Earth.

Their logic eludes me completely.

[cricket]

"The ones responsible for this should go to PRISON for a very, very long time.

I would say. . .a 'lifetime' is too good. Keep them in for several . . .

[valkyrieanne]

Yes, no one died. People count the seriousness of arson not only in the amount of damage done, but in the *extent* of the damage. One home with a family dying is serious - but entire individual families are killed in house fires. It's not common, but not unheard of.

This, on the other hand, is spectacular in the degree of devastation. This is what civilization looks like when the barbarians have their way.

[valkyrieanne]

I am one of those people. the people that live in these subdivisions should just stay in the city.

Just *stay in the city?* Are you serious? What precisely are they supposed to *do* with their children "in the city?" Or are they not supposed to have any? That would please the eco-twits and Voluntary Human Extinctionists just fine.

People move to these *ugly* houses because they want to raise their families in a safe place, with better schools.

[rabidralph]

But wait, there's more! No Washington Post story would be complete without planting the race card. From today's fishwrap:

Hunters Brooke, built near an ecologically sensitive bog, has been a focus of dispute between environmentalists and the regulators who allowed the subdivision to be built. Many of those who have settled in Hunters Brooke, or were planning to, are African Americans purchasing homes in the $400,000 to $500,000 range in a county that is mostly white.

Authorities said yesterday that they were unsure whether the fires were set as an act of environmental extremism, as a hate crime or for some other reason.

"We still just remain very open," Maddox said. "We're just conducting a logical investigation, and anything and everything that should be considered is being considered."

Although Charles is a blue county, I have never encountered any racist people since I lived there. I am disgusted that the media always throws this out, as if it's impossible for the people of different races to live together in peace.

[Rebelbase]

I live in one of the "environmentally" friendly hoods of which you delight. Postage stamp lots with lots of common areas and trees. I back up to woods that cannot be developed.

I am sick of living in the woods. I hate raking leaves, acorns and hickory nuts. I despise the view being limited by trees. Next house isn't going to have a tree within 100 feet.

[Stoat]

I am disgusted that the media always throws this out, as if it's impossible for the people of different races to live together in peace.

Controversy sells papers, and racism sells papers.  Terrorism sells papers too, but because they're environmentalists, the press doesn't consider them to be in the same league as terrorists because they have empathy for their 'cause'.  The reporters know that there will be minimal if any press followup when and if any perpetrators are caught, and so they want to plant the seed of a racist conspiracy here at the outset to take some of the heat off of their environmentalist friends.

Can you tell that I've had enough of the MSM ?  :-) 

[Big Giant Head]

The ones responsible for this should go to PRISON for a very, very long time.

I think they should become slaves who shall work for minimum wage until all damages have been repaid. Include a healthy dose of shame and humiliation. Make a very public example of them. Shock and awe.

[WildHorseCrash]

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?

Compared to city living, a large single family home on a small lot is spacious surroundings. But, more importantly, I was speaking of the homes themselves, not the lots.

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.

Simply because their developments are selling at higher prices does not necessarily mean their profit margins are higher. It may simply mean that their costs are higher.

Further, if people wanted to purchase homes on uncleared lots, the markets would accommodate this demand. The fact that there is, as you say, very few doing it this way simply means that most purchasers don't agree with you.

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

How very 21st century of you. I am not deaf to your argument, your argument is simply devoid of merit. The fact is, you appear to want others to subsidize the rural character of your surroundings, simply because you prefer it that way. You want to impose your aesthetic view of how buildings should be "environmentally sensitive," regardless of the opinions of the owners of this land and regardless of whether the people who buy these homes agree with you or not. And since you are impotent in the face of the market, you react by calling them ugly and the builders greedy, cheap and stupid. As I said, devoid of merit.

[Smokin' Joe]

Not if she thinks about it. This is probably one of the worst things that could happen, from her point of view, or the point of view of any plaintiff. There will always be suspicion that one of the plaintiffs in the suit had something to do with this. That will undermine any case they have.

It even polluted the swamp, most likely.

Keep in mind, please, that wanting a few pristine areas (real ones) isn't such a bad idea. Swamps are especially critical to the tidewater ecosystem, and their elimination has caused massive reductions in fisheries industries in MD, especially over the last 40 years.

Only when people go nuts and try to preserve everything, pristine or not, do people go overboard.

And before you crank up the flames, keep in mind that I grew up in that region, am a geologist, and am writing from an oil drilling location in eastern Montana (in other words, I'm not an ecowhacko).

[sodpoodle]

"Keep in mind, please, that wanting a few pristine areas (real ones) isn't such a bad idea. Swamps are especially critical to the tidewater ecosystem, and their elimination has caused massive reductions in fisheries industries in MD, especially over the last 40 years."

If the eco-purist plaintiffs' motives were truly "pristine" they should be willing to relinquish their own land - back to its natural state and move to the city! That would be the honorable thing to do.

[Smokin' Joe]

This wetland was/is not go-back land, it is in its natural state and has been. What about those who just want to make a living as watermen again, whose ancestors arrived in So. MD in the 1600's and 1700's? Where do they "go back" to?

These people are neither "eco-purists" or terrorists, and are not the type to achieve what they want by such acts. Most have seen the deleterious effects of encroaching cities and urbanity in the last three or four decades and remember how it was.

The cities have come to them.

It is only in the past 30 years that Charles county's population has gone from 25,000 to 250,000.

[sodpoodle]

Ah........the pursuit of happiness. NIMBY.

Guess we are in the throes of the overpopulation conundrum.

How far back in history do we go to decide who gets to live on a piece of Paradise?

Just asking. I have no answers.

[Smokin' Joe]

I don't know. THe boom started in the 50' and 60's when white folks and people of color and means abandoned most of D.C. I remember my great Aunt living there when I was a kid. She moved to Arizona when I was 5 or 6.

After the race riots in '66, D.C. has been steadily going down hill. With federal expansion, jobs expanded, the demand for outlying housing expanded, etc. It isn't so much about living somewhere pristine for most of these folks who won't live there more than 4 or 5 years, as it is about buying a house they can make money on by the time they move.

Locals who have been there (their families, that is) for 350 years can't afford to keep living there as taxes increase, driven by the combination of increased property valuations and demand for services some parts of the county do not get. Land does not remain productive that long if you are not taking care of it.

Sometimes, change sucks. The newcomers are oblivious to that, and do not care, their tenure is limited, anyway.

[sodpoodle]

1) Land does not remain productive that long if you are not taking care of it.
2)Sometimes, change sucks.
3)The newcomers are oblivious to that, and do not care, their tenure is limited, anyway.

Response to your comments:
1) If the land is not being used - it could only be sold to developers - by descendents of the original owners.
2) Yes
3) I think the newbies probably want to live in and retire to this paradise. I am sure they will want development limited once they are established "residents". It's the same cycle of proprietership.

[Smokin' Joe]

I am sure they will want development limited once they are established "residents". It's the same cycle of proprietership.

LOL! Those houses in the photos are within spittin' distance with a fair wind.

[sitetest]

Dear Smokin' Joe,

Well, the real problem is that there are just too darned many people who need to live in the region. ;-)

"After the race riots in '66, D.C. has been steadily going down hill."

The population of Washington, DC did decline for a while. However, the growth of the rest of the region has far outstripped population declines in the city.

And also, the actual decline in the District, both in absolute population and in the quality of housing, was reversed some while back, and is enjoying a modest resurgence. Especially as more and more folks flood into the region, making commuting from places like Manassas, Frederick, and Easton commonplace, a lot of the city's housing stock has been, and is being redeveloped. City population is going up, especially non-minority population, and housing values are going crazy.

The federal government has not been a direct factor of growth in the region since at least the Reagan administration. Net federal employment has actually declined since then.

The ultimate reason all these houses are going up is that there are more folks who want to live in this region than ever.

"Locals who have been there (their families, that is) for 350 years can't afford to keep living there as taxes increase, driven by the combination of increased property valuations and demand for services some parts of the county do not get."

Well, that's sorta true and sorta not. For someone who has been living in the same house, property taxes may only rise modestly. Different counties have different limitations, but overall, the state of Maryland cannot increase assessments more than 10% over three years, or about 3% per year.

The problem comes when folks move. If I live in Anne Arundel County, and I bought a home, let's say, in 1986, for $100,000, my property taxes then were about $1000 per year. Under the state restrictions, my taxes would now be about $1800 per year. But my house now is probably worth about $500,000. When I sell it, the folks who move in will have property taxes of about $5000 per year.

As long as I live in the same place, the increases don't affect me much. But they do affect me if I decide to move, and they also affect my children as they grow up and want to buy their own places.

As I look around at the $500,000 and $600,000 and $1,000,000 and more expensive homes in my neighborhood and my community, I really do wonder what will happen when my 10 and 7 year old sons reach adulthood.

"Sometimes, change sucks. The newcomers are oblivious to that, and do not care, their tenure is limited, anyway."

Well, perhaps it's better to say that there are often aspects of change that suck.

But the comment about "newcomers" is a little unfair. If you're talking about folks whose families have been here 350 years as not being "newcomers," almost everyone in this region is a "newcomer."

Certainly, I'm a "newcomer," having arrived in the region only in 1966. But I went to elementary school, high school, and college in this area, and chose to live as an adult in this area. It isn't unlikely that I'll die here.

My children were born in this region. I will probably spend most or all of the rest of my working life in this area, and will probably see my own children to adulthood in this area.

But I guess by the definition you imply, they're "newcomers," too. LOL.

The fact is, the region has more than doubled in population since my family moved here in 1966. That means most of us are "newcomers." Nonetheless, for many of us, our tenure isn't really all that limited at all.


sitetest