WEDNESDAY, november 12, 2025
5:30 PM – 6:30 PM EST

More information / Click HERE FOR OUR INFOGRAPHIC

Register via eventbrite: 2026 bar bad bars workshop (VIRTUAL)

The post Bar Bad Bars: Protest of Renewal 2026 appeared first on Community Law Center.

The post Federal Legislation 2021: Good News appeared first on Community Law Center.

The post SNAP in 2020 appeared first on Community Law Center.

The manual provides the basics for:
1 – Getting Started
2 – Land Access and Use Restrictions
3 – Building Structures
4 – Accessing Water
5 – Keeping Farm Animals
6 – Distributing Produce
7 – Liability, Risk, and Insurance
8 – Employment and Labor Law

This manual is available for free download or to purchase a printed copy. This, and our other publications are available by clicking here.

If you are a nonprofit organization interested in farming, gardening or greening, Community Law Center may be able to provide you with free legal assistance. You can apply for legal services by clicking here.

Thank you to all of the farmers, urban and not urban, in Maryland who talked with us about their legal issues.

The post Legal Tools for Urban Agriculture in Baltimore City appeared first on Community Law Center.

The post Senate Bill to Provide Incentives for Supermarkets to Move into Baltimore’s “Food Deserts” appeared first on Community Law Center.

Urban agriculture opportunities come in many forms, but perhaps one of the most prevalent ones is simply right before us: in our yards.  Many people take great pride in their yards, even small yards in row home communities.  Expanding access to yard assets is a frequently overlooked aspects of urban agriculture. A carefully constructed side yard program allows for the expansion of private yards, and brings with it the pride and investments homeowners often make in their own green spaces.

As cities contemplate demolition programs, the question persists: what plans are there for post-demolition? In many instances, vacant lots, like the one below, pose a serious nuisance to the neighborhood.  Rats run rampant, high grasses and weeds hide drug stashes, and the lot may become a site for illegal dumping and trash.

Maintained lots, on the other hand, can have many positive effects on a community. A study out of Philadelphia even found that greening of vacant lots may reduce violence.

One way to address the post-demolition problems of vacant lots while engaging and investing in remaining residents is through an active side yard program.  In Baltimore, the City’s current side-yard program program, adopted in 2011, allows owners to purchase City-owned properties smaller than 1,500 square feet next door for $500. An article in Urban Affairs Review studied Saint Louis’ side yard program, finding that maximizing side yard potential requires easing a number of barriers. Expanding side yard programs holds some promise for providing opportunities for small-scale private investment and preventing vacant lots becoming nuisances to neighborhoods.

The post Sustainability Through Side Yards appeared first on Community Law Center.

The proposed bill would allow property owners to access a 90% credit in property taxes owed to the City of Baltimore if the property is used for urban agricultural purposes. In April 2014, the Maryland General Assembly passed a law enabling Maryland counties and Baltimore City to enact a tax credit that encourages the use of private property for one or more of five urban agricultural purposes. These purposes include

1)      Crop production activities;

2)      Environmental mitigation activities;

3)      Community development activities, including recreational activities, food donations, and food preparation and canning classes;

4)      Economic development activities, including employment and training opportunities, and direct sales to restaurants and institutions; and

5)      Temporary produce stands selling on-site produce.

The proposed bill also limited this credit to urban agriculture projects that produce a minimum of $5,000.00 in agricultural products each year.

Prior to the October 1, 2014 hearing, each agency submitted its comments. The Department of Finance was the only agency that specifically opposed the tax credit, expressing concern that the credit could be abused. A representative of the Finance Department stated that, should the proposed tax credit be limited to properties that are exclusively used for urban agricultural purposes, the department would be more supportive of the proposal. After his statements, Abby Cocke of the Baltimore City Office of Sustainability took the floor and proposed a number of amendments to the bill under consideration. She said that these amendments were agreed upon between the Office of Sustainability and the Finance Department to both offices’ satisfaction. The amendments included

1)      Adding definition in §10-18(A) for Urban Agricultural Products to further clarify what produce would be considered in calculating the $5,000 yearly yield.

2)      Removing the words “for-profit” from §10-18(C)(B) to limit the credit only to those properties that are used for an urban agricultural purpose and “may not be used for any other purpose that would subject the parcel to property tax liability.”

3)      Adding language in §10-18(G)(2) to require any owner of property receiving the tax credit to pay back-taxes plus interest if the property should cease to be used for urban agricultural purposes within the five-year credit term.

4)      Switching department responsibilities in §10-18(H)(1) and §10-18(I)(1) to allow the Department of Finance control over “adopt[ing] rules and regulations to carry out this section, including the procedures, forms, and documentation required to apply for the credit and to periodically evidence continuing eligibility for the credit” and to require the Office of Sustainability to “analyze the public costs and benefits of the credits granted under this section and annually report … findings to the Board of Estimates and the City Council.”

Because these amendments were introduced orally, Committee Chair Councilmember Carl Stokes proposed that any vote be postponed until the Committee had a chance to review the new proposed bill in writing. He suggested that, at the conclusion of the hearing, he would order a recess, and the public hearing will resume at a later date for further discussion and a vote.

A representative from the Baltimore City Law Department then offered her trepidations about the bill as proposed originally. She too refrained from offering any final opinion on the bill until she has the chance to review the amended version in writing. However, the Law Department explained that any additional qualifications proposed in Council Bill 14-0420 contradict the enabling state law. The representative pointed out that, by limiting the applicability of the credit to properties that are only used exclusively for urban agricultural purposes, the Council Bill goes against the letter of the state law. She also suggested that the word “imposed” upon the property, when referring to taxes owed in the credit’s absence, be replaced with the word “due” because it allows the City more flexibility in case an error is made in the assessed taxes “imposed.”

A group from Johns Hopkins Global Obesity Prevention Center offered their support of the proposed bill by presenting evidence that an increased number of urban agriculture projects within the city of Baltimore could have a substantial positive effect on the number of Baltimore children with access to fresh fruits and vegetables and who will choose to consume fresh fruits and vegetables. Several community members, including Community Law Center, then added their input on the proposal. At the conclusion of the hearing, Committee Chair Stokes ordered the hearing take a recess until such time that the Office of Sustainability distributes the amended bill proposal to all interested parties. The date for the reconvened committee meeting has not yet been set.

More information about the state enabling legislation that gives Baltimore City the authority to create this tax credit is available here.

The post Urban Agriculture Property Tax Credit in Baltimore City: First Reader Committee Meeting at City Hall appeared first on Community Law Center.

“Extensive” green roofs (as opposed to “intensive”) allow for up to 6 inches of plant growth, utilizing hardy, drought-tolerant grasses and succulents that require very little maintenance once installed. Extensive green roofs can be installed on almost any roof, including small roofs over garages or sheds and sloped roofs. The only installation requirement is adequate reinforcement of the underlying roof. A typical extensive green roof weighs 30 pounds per square foot when saturated with water. According to Green Roofs for Healthy Cities’ 2013 Annual Green Roof Industry Survey, Baltimore City ranked in the top 10 U.S. cities for green roof square footage. The city’s most famous green roofs can be found atop the National Aquarium in Baltimore, the Maryland Science Center, and the city’s only non-profit retirement community, Roland Park Place. Although the city does not provide any financial incentive to install green roofs, Blue Water Baltimore’s Water Audit Program can provide a free assessment of your home and determine whether a green roof if possible and affordable.  As long as your green roof project conforms to its requirements, the Water Audit Program also offers rebates on the total cost of your project. Blue Water Baltimore has created a list of contractors in the Baltimore area with experience creating extensive green roofs on residential buildings.

Installing a green roof on your home typically costs between $15 and $30 per square foot, although the cost can be higher is your roof requires reinforcement. In Baltimore City, you are required to obtain a construction permit before installing a green roof. This can be done at the One Stop Permit Center at 417 E. Fayette Street, Room 100. There is a one-time, non-refundable application fee of $25.00 in addition to the permit fee. Generally, the permit fee will be charged at a rate of $10.00 per $1,000.00 of estimated costs for the project.

NOTE: If you live in a Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation (CHAP) district, any exterior modifications to your residence must be approved by CHAP. Your permit application at Baltimore Housing will be forwarded to CHAP, from whom you must obtain a Notice to Proceed.

The post Greening the Rooftops in Baltimore City appeared first on Community Law Center.

1)      Crop production activities

2)      Environmental mitigation activities

3)      Community development activities, including recreational activities, food donations, and food preparation and canning classes

4)      Economic development activities, including employment and training opportunities, and direct sales to restaurants and institutions

5)      Temporary produce stands selling on-site produce

In 2010, the Maryland State Legislature adopted a similar bill authorizing the tax credit for properties used exclusively for urban agricultural purposes. In November 2011, however, Baltimore City Council declined to adopt such a credit, stating that it would set a bad precedent. The 2014 version, introduced on January 17, 2104 by Delegates Samuel Rosenberg (Baltimore City) and Jon Cardin (Baltimore County), is more inclusive than its 2010 counterpart, because it includes urban farmers who reside on their property or do not use the land exclusively for urban agricultural activities.

The bill is set to take effect July 1, 2014, pending the Governor’s signature.  Baltimore City Council and the Mayor’s Office will then have to consider whether to implement this tax credit in the City of Baltimore and, if so, determine

1)      The amount of the tax credit

2)      Any additional eligibility criteria

3)      Regulations and procedures for applications

When the first bill failed before the City Council in 2011, Councilmembers Mary Pat Clarke and Warren Branch proposed a 100% tax break for urban agricultural projects that promoted agriculture, preservation, or environmental education. Because the bill simply authorizes the City to offer this tax credit to the public, the specifics about who can qualify and how much the credit will be worth have yet to be determined. Other states, including California, have adopted similar laws allowing urban farmers the benefit of a tax credit. However, cities have yet to opt in to these programs and begin offering them to urban farmers.

Note: This blog post will serve as an update to the May 2012 post by Becky Witt.

The post Maryland State Legislature Passes New Urban Agriculture Tax Credit Bill appeared first on Community Law Center.

A recent poll shows that Maryland residents strongly support the creation of this database. The bill is expected to raise $130,000 each year, which will begin by funding a survey of all pesticides being used in the State of Maryland, including which chemicals they contain, in what quantities they are administered, and where they are used. Maryland beekeepers circulated a petition in support of this bill, stating, “This [$10 increase] would be used to provide public health experts, wildlife and environmental scientists with data they need on pesticide use in the state to determine if and when pesticides are affecting our health, the Chesapeake Bay, and our honeybees and birds.”

Lawmakers and environmental groups are concerned about rapid decline of Maryland’s honeybee population, which is responsible for pollinating Maryland crops valued at $40 million. In the last year, the State of Maryland lost one-third to one-half of its honeybee population, at a rate significantly higher than the national average. But, beyond the belief that this is related to pesticide use throughout the state, Maryland scientists have not had access to the information necessary to determine the exact cause of the decline in honeybee populations.

Under current law, pesticide distributors are only required to register the name of their product with the Maryland Department of Agriculture and pay a $100 fee in order to distribute to professional pesticide applicators, such as farmers and lawn care companies. In 2013, legislation failed that proposed implementing a reporting requirement for all distributors and certified applicators. Instead, the amended 2013 bill created the Pesticide Information and Reporting Workgroup, which published its interim report recommending the database in January 2014. The new bill increases the fee to $110 and reserves the additional $10 for the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s activities “relating to the collection, analysis, and reporting of data on pesticide use in the State.”

The post Proposed Legislation to Increase Cost of Registering Pesticides in the State of Maryland appeared first on Community Law Center.