BALTIMORE — Former Baltimore Mayor, Martin O'Malley, isn't keeping secret how he's voting on Question F. It's a resounding "No."
O'Malley took to social media on Saturday afternoon to say he is voting against the Inner Harbor referendum and goes on to say "it's a terrible developer grab of public waterfront parkland."
O'Malley, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, said he was speaking in a personal capacity.
Speaking in my personal capacity as Citizen and former Mayor of Baltimore, I am voting AGAINST the Inner Harbor referendum Question F — it’s a terrible developer grab of public waterfront parkland. The Inner Harbor should be for all.#greatestcity in America. Let’s act like it.
— Martin O'Malley (@MartinOMalley) November 2, 2024
Earlier in the week 'Baltimore for a New Harborplace,' a group for the passage of Question F, touted the plan's support from three former mayors: Kurt Schmoke, Jack Young, and Stephanie Rawlings Blake.
In a release, all three were quoted saying it helps build a better future for Baltimore and to vote yes.
Mayor Brandon Scott also supports the amendment.
Question F, if approved, would change the city's charter to allow for development near the harbor.
Harborplace developer, MCB Real Estate overseen by David Bramble announced plans last year to build four new buildings, including a conjoined residential tower with approximately 900 dwelling units, and retail and commercial space.
MCB says the plan was developed after intensive public engagement and includes four acres of new accessible parkland, a renovated waterfront promenade, and more than 500 new trees.
It also includes mixed-income housing and 250,000 square feet of retail space for shopping, dining, and other local businesses.
Last month, the Baltimore group Protect Our Parks launched their 'Vote F No' on Harborplace development.
While members of Protect our Parks say redevelopment is needed, it should not include subsidies to private developers.
In September, a judge ruled votes on Question F wouldn't be counted, stating ballot wording was too confusing.
However, the state supreme court overturned that decision last month saying this petition for judicial review wasn't the right way to challenge the language of the question.
