The decision, announced last Friday, drew mixed reactions. Supporters applauded the move, calling the colorful crosswalk unsafe and unfairly preferential. Opponents said it symbolized inclusion and acceptance — and that removing it erases progress for LGBTQ+ residents.

Among the critics was local artist and activist KT Tuminello, who had staged a hunger strike in protest. As road crews tore up the street in near-freezing temperatures Tuesday morning, friends helped Tuminello into a car. Before leaving, he raised a fist toward City Hall and cursed the mayor.

The Shore Pride Alliance [SPA], which designed, paid for and created the rainbow crosswalk, is also frustrated with the situation.

“We know that rainbow crosswalks have never been divisive, political or exclusionary, something affirmed by empirical research that has found time and again that symbols of inclusivity are uniting and help counter marginalization,” the group said in a statement. “We remain confident that love and inclusion cannot be truly erased and that the spirit of our crosswalk will persist until such time as it can be reinstalled.”

Tensions flare at City Council

On Monday night, the crosswalk came up at a City Council meeting.

Salisbury resident Joe Venosa criticized former officials for installing the crosswalk and potentially exposing the city to liability, but said “getting rid of it is far worse.”

“The fact remains certain — you don’t have a mandate to do this. You should not do it,” Venosa said. “Please think of constituents who are really going to feel it on a human level.”

Resident Suzanna Mallow said she was struck by the phrase “liberty and justice for all” in the Pledge of Allegiance that opened the meeting.

“For the first time, probably since I’ve moved here, I started thinking, is this still my town? I’m really starting to think it’s not,” she said.

Taylor, during administrative comments, said he felt that some speakers were trying to create division.

“There’s this want to create separation between my values and other people’s values, to seem superior to what I value,” he said. “And I think we’re probably more on the same page than not. I think a lot of this stuff is generated to create a political backdrop, and I don’t think that’s particularly healthy.”

“I’m. On. Your. Team,” he said, pounding the table for emphasis. “I’ve been here my whole life … You guys piling up on me like you’re superior, I don’t get it. I’m this bigot and racist or whatever you want. I’m sick of it. OK? I’m not that person.”

Councilwoman Michele Gregory fired back.

“Mr. Mayor, if you don’t want to be called a bigot, don’t do bigoted things,” she said.

“I would just ask that you take a minute and breathe and learn that public office and being in the public eye means you’re going to take criticism that you don’t like,” Gregory said. “But that does not mean you get to scold the people that are making you feel bad by their criticisms.”

Replacements won’t be free

SPA officials noted that the crosswalk was created with the approval of the Salisbury Arts Council. In 2018, a public request for proposals [RFP] was sent out by the city’s Arts and Entertainment District. SPA submitted their idea and it was selected by the arts council.

Since that original approval, SPA has applied for and received permits from the city for all needed maintenance and repainting. When SPA redesigned the crosswalk in 2021, the nonprofit filed an amended proposal and got permission to modify the original design.

“Shore Pride Alliance has repainted the crosswalk every year at no cost to the city,” the group said in a statement. “SPA pays for the permit to block the road and repaint. Paint and needed supplies have been purchased by the non-profit. Labor has been provided free of charge using volunteers from the community. The upkeep of the crosswalk has been at no cost to the city.”

By contrast, Taylor’s original plan would have come with a city-funded price tag. Salisbury launched its “Crosswalk Canvas” art initiative in May, promising $3,000 to the winning artist. The winning design would be on the crosswalk for the next two years, and then another contest would be held. But the mayor told The Sun earlier this week that the city would not be moving forward with the plan “as most of the submissions were pornographic.”

Have a news tip? Contact Eastern Shore bureau chief Josh Davis at jdavis@baltsun.com or on X as @JoshDavis4Shore.

Around 9:35 p.m. on Friday, officers from the Franklin Precinct were called out to the 1100 block of Reisterstown Road in response to a reported shooting. Upon arrival, they found the victim suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. The man was transported to a local hospital for treatment.

As a result of the investigation, officers charged 38-year-old Michael T. Johnson with attempted first-degree murder. Johnson is being held without bail at the Baltimore County Detention Center.

Authorities said the investigation is ongoing and urged anyone with information to contact detectives at 410-887-4636. That information can be provided anonymously by contacting Metro Crime Stoppers at 1-866-756-2587(7LOCKUP). Anyone providing information by phone or online through Metro Crime Stoppers of Maryland may be eligible for a cash reward of up to $2,000.

The project will repave Market Street from Main Street to South Division Street near City Headquarters and the Wicomico County Public Library. As part of the work, the city will replace the crosswalks with a neutral design.

Mayor Randy Taylor announced the move in a statement late Friday, saying that the decision aligns with U.S. Department of Transportation marking standards and a Supreme Court ruling on neutrality in public spaces.

“Since taking office, I’ve been transparent about my concerns regarding the Pride crosswalks installed in Downtown Salisbury,” Taylor said. “While I have made every effort to respect the decisions of previous administrations, it has become clear that a course correction is necessary.”

Taylor added that the city earlier this year proposed a rotating art program to celebrate Salisbury’s character and history, but it did not “achieve the broad participation” for which officials had hoped. To date, the city has not shown any of the proposals to the public.

Part of larger effort

Taylor said the repaving comes as part of a broader infrastructure effort that brings Salisbury closer to finishing the Urban Greenway Project. The project, originally scheduled to be finished in 2021, aims at connecting key thoroughfares for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. City officials said no road closures are expected with the repaving, and flaggers will assist with traffic control.

Shore Pride Alliance (PFLAG), which helped install and fund the original crosswalks, said in a statement it was “proud to have installed Maryland’s first rainbow, trans pride, and progress pride crosswalks” and “appreciated our time as stewards and financial sponsors” of the project.

The original Salisbury Pride crosswalk was installed in 2018 by PFLAG volunteers, the first “rainbow crosswalk” in Maryland. A rainbow crosswalk is exactly what it sounds like: a pedestrian crossing painted with rainbow-colored stripes with the goal of celebrating diversity and LGBTQ+ pride.

In 2021, two new sections were added to the intersection, creating the state’s first progress pride and trans pride crosswalks. The crosswalks, over time, have even generated their own #SBYPFLAG hashtag on Instagram and Twitter, now X.

No more options

Shore Pride Alliance said it had “exhausted every relationship” with the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, the Office of Civil Rights, and other agencies in an attempt to preserve the crosswalks, but that “the final decision came down to the Mayor of the City of Salisbury, who strongly believes that the crosswalk is divisive.”

“Please know that we appreciate the support that we have received from members of the Salisbury City Council, the general public, and the Maryland Commission for LGBTQIA+ Affairs,” the Alliance said. “We are confident that in the end, love always wins and that the spirit of our crosswalk and its history will persist.”

Taylor, meanwhile, thanked residents for their engagement and emphasized his goal of maintaining fairness and inclusion in public spaces.

“Let us continue working together to build a city that honors every voice while remaining true to the principles of fairness and inclusion,” Taylor said.

Have a news tip? Contact Emerging News Editor Brian Carlton at bcarlton@baltsun.com.

The report, conducted by Matrix Design Group, found that 54% of homes in the county met criteria for “lower-quality construction,” with the most severe deficiencies concentrated in southern areas such as Pocomoke City and Snow Hill. Commissioners blasted the findings this week, questioning the study’s methods and warning that the data could be used to justify state-imposed quotas for affordable housing.

“The criteria used to develop the assertions and points made in the report were missing and possibly skewed,” said Worcester Commissioner Chip Bertino. “It’s concerning and frustrating.”

Bertino and other commissioners argued that rural areas, such as Worcester, shouldn’t be judged by the same standards as Maryland’s urban centers. “One size does not fit all,” Bertino said. “Rural counties will bear a burden weighed down by urban priorities.”

Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development spokesperson Allison Foster defended the study, saying it supports the state’s goal of helping Maryland families afford “safe, accessible, dignified, and energy-efficient housing.” She pointed out the report was commissioned by Worcester County using a $50,000 Maryland Community Development Block Grant and was not performed by the state.

Going over the report’s data

The section labeling 54% of county homes as “lower-quality construction” was the most controversial. The report cited aging housing stock in the southern part of Worcester, where many homes were built before 1970 and still rely on fuels like kerosene or wood — factors the study said signal “older infrastructure, higher vulnerability to deterioration, code violations, and habitability issues.”

Using that standard, Commission President Ted Elder pointed out that “many of the commissioners might have substandard housing” based on their fuel estimates.

Other commissioners also rejected those standards, with Bertino calling the figure “bizarre” and “an unreasonable assertion.” Commissioner Eric Fiori said he fears the data could open the door to state housing mandates.

Construction quality wasn’t the only concern in the report. It also raised questions both about cost burdens for homeowners and overall housing affordability.

As of May 2025, the median housing price in Worcester stood at $428,087. The standard benchmark calls for home prices not to exceed three times a household’s annual income. That means to afford the typical Worcester home, a household would need to earn approximately $143,000 annually. That’s far above the reality for most residents.

An estimated one-third of Worcester households earned $50,000 or less in 2023, the most recent year for which data is available. Only 20% earned $150,000 or more, compared to 32% statewide, with the highest-income households concentrated in West Ocean City. Only 1% of Worcester house listings are affordable for those households earning $50,000, with 10% affordable for families earning $75,000.

And some of those who do own a home are struggling to pay for it in Worcester. An estimated 31% of homeowners with mortgages in Worcester are “cost burdened,” meaning they spend over 30% of their income on housing. Berlin, Pocomoke City and Snow Hill, the report found, are facing high rates of household overcrowding due to these affordability issues.

The biggest concern is that these numbers are expected to continue growing. Between 2010 and 2023, Worcester’s population increased from 51,454 to 54,337. The latest state and federal projections expect the number to climb to 59,650 by 2035 and 62,895 by 2050.

Ignoring those future projections and focusing solely on today, Worcester requires an additional 2,076 houses. Adding in the expected growth, that need would climb to 2,870 by 2035 and 4,389 by 2050.

How are the problems being addressed?

County officials and the report itself point to several state-run projects that will help residents. The first of those is Operation Rebuild, where Worcester helps homeowners replace substandard houses with new, code-compliant buildings through low-interest loans. By the end of 2024, Worcester had helped replace 10 homes through the program.

Also, there’s the Healthy Homes Initiative, a joint effort between the Chesapeake Housing Mission, Atlantic General Hospital and the Worcester County Health Department. The project provides funding for critical home repairs in substandard housing, aiming to improve conditions deemed “unsafe and unhealthy.”

Third, there is the Maryland Affordable Housing Trust, which supports nonprofit and public agency projects aimed at helping residents improve their homes. Worcester was recently awarded a two-year $300,000 grant under the Plumbing Poverty Program, which allows households earning less than 50% of the county’s median income that lack basic plumbing in their homes.

Fourth, Worcester receives $300,000 in Community Development Block Grant funding every two years from DHCD. In addition to paying for studies like this recent one, the money also helps rehabilitate between 12 to 15 homes labeled as substandard.

Speaking with The Sun on Wednesday, Bertino said the state needs to help in one other way. He argued that truly affordable homes will only come when state-mandated building costs — such as sprinkler systems and best available technology [BAT] septic requirements — are relaxed.

“Currently, these requirements add tens of thousands of dollars to home prices,” he said.

Have a news tip? Contact Eastern Shore bureau chief Josh Davis at jdavis@baltsun.com or on X as @JoshDavis4Shore. Contact Emerging News Editor Brian Carlton at bcarlton@baltsun.com.

Other counties with existing ICE agreements say the guidance and potential legislation don’t worry them, telling The Baltimore Sun their own partnerships will continue.

But Wicomico wants to err on the side of caution. Sheriff Mike Lewis argued that Attorney General Anthony Brown “fired a warning shot across the bow at every law enforcement agency in the state” by promising civil and even criminal penalties for partnering with ICE. Lewis called that “Maryland politics at its best.”

The Wicomico decision marks a reversal from one month ago, when both Lewis and County Executive Julie Giordano said they saw no reason Brown’s guidance would impact their proposal. Their argument at the time was the document applied to law enforcement, while corrections officers would carry out the work here.

During Tuesday night’s county council meeting, attorney Andrew Illuminati explained what changed. Representing both Lewis and Giordano, Illuminati said due to the current shortage of correctional officers at the jail, Wicomico would have been required to use deputies to fulfill the duties in an ICE partnership. And that would have opened the county up to legal liability, he argued.

In addition, Giordano told the council she learned of bills being considered for the coming state legislative session that would make the Wicomico partnership with ICE illegal. Because of that, she suggested tabling the partnership at least until the end of the Assembly session.

Guidance and a reversal

Beyond the task force model, which isn’t used in Maryland, there are two types of ICE partnerships with law enforcement. The Warrant Service Officer model, which is what Wicomico had looked at, allows local officers to serve existing federal warrants. The Jail Enforcement model pays for training so corrections officers can check the immigration status of suspects in local jails. These partnerships are voluntary, with counties and cities able to approve or reject them as desired.

Brown’s Oct. 15 guidance restricts what’s allowed in those partnerships. It states while “performing regular police functions, Maryland officers may not enforce civil immigration laws or assist federal agents in enforcing such laws.”

As long as correctional officers are being used, there’s no problem. But in a case like Wicomico where resources aren’t always available, that would put deputies into the role. And as Brown listed in his guidance, “Maryland officers are subject to civilian oversight in misconduct matters and face substantial exposure to civil liability for violations of State or federal law.”

If you break the law, that opens the door to legal liability. But unless a deputy violates state or federal law, those penalties don’t exist. That’s why Cori Alonso-Yoder feels there’s no conflict between Brown’s guidance and the ICE partnerships. Alonso-Yoder is Director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Maryland School of Law.

Instead, she points to recent U.S. Supreme Court actions as more of a concern for any county using the Warrant Service Officer model. The Supreme Court this year has lifted an order barring federal agents from stopping people based on race, language, job or location. This means agents can now use these factors in addition to, or without, reasonable suspicion to make stops. Recent Supreme Court rulings have also made it harder for people to sue federal law enforcement officers for civil rights violations, including ICE agents. But that hasn’t specifically been transferred to local officers as well.

“I think it is an open question,” Alonso-Yoder said. “There is a fair amount of legal gray area.”

It’s different with the Jail Enforcement Model, Alonso-Yoder said, because those people have already been picked up on suspicion of committing a local crime. They’re in the system, so it’s not unusual for a corrections officer to go over their immigration status.

“With the warrant model, it’s not in their regular law enforcement duties,” Alonso-Yoder said. That’s not a deputy’s typical job, to pull someone over on suspicion of being undocumented. And so there’s a question, she argued, whether they have the same legal protections given to federal officers in these cases.

But as for the attorney general’s guidance, she didn’t see any conflict between that and engaging in a jail enforcement partnership with ICE.

“The attorney general’s guidance was very clear,” Alonso-Yoder said. “I just don’t think there is a conflict.”

Other counties say they’re following the law

Counties with existing partnerships say the attorney general’s guidance isn’t changing how they operate. And all of them are moving forward with their respective programs.

“The guidance is given out by the attorney general for law-enforcement personnel,” said Carroll County Sheriff James T. DeWees. “The jail model is strictly jail enforcement. These are people that are brought into the jail for crime they’ve committed in the community. It’s confusing for a lot of people because you have to separate me in two ways. I oversee all of law-enforcement and I oversee all of corrections and the two are mutually exclusive.”

Another factor differing between Wicomico and the other counties is the opposition to any partnership. Over the last two months, Wicomico residents showed up an hour before the actual council meetings, then filled up the chambers while calling for an end to the proposal. Other counties didn’t see the same level of complaints.

Lisa Casas said St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office may use the Warrant Service Officer model, but it’s operated by correctional employees, not deputies.

“The St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office abides by the laws of Maryland,” Casas said. “The procedures clearly defined in the agreement describe the steps to be taken if an individual is arrested for a criminal act in our county and has a federal detainer related to their immigration status.”

The same is true for Allegany, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, Harford and Washington counties, all of whom have told The Sun they’re moving forward with ICE partnerships.

Have a news tip? Contact Eastern Shore bureau chief Josh Davis at jdavis@baltsun.com or on X as @JoshDavis4Shore. Contact Emerging News Editor Brian Carlton at bcarlton@baltsun.com.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown and Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings each submitted filings this week arguing that halting the project — a move pushed for by the Town of Ocean City and the U.S. Department of the Interior — would harm both states’ economies and undermine energy needs.

“In total, the project is projected to provide over $6.2 billion in benefits to the state and support over 13,600 in-state jobs,” Brown wrote in Maryland’s filing. “US Wind has committed to creating 1,000 in-state job-years for operations and management activities during Phase 1 of the project alone, and over 1,300 in-state job-years for the construction and operation of each of Phases 2, 3 and 4.”

Brown said the first phase would include more than $75 million in investments in Maryland’s steel and port industry facilities.

He also argued that the project was needed to meet Maryland’s projected future energy demand, a demand he acknowledged mainly stemmed “from new data centers being constructed in the region.”

The US Wind project, Brown argued, offers “a significant new source of electricity at a time when PJM—the entity that manages the wholesale electricity grid for Maryland, all or parts of twelve other states, and the District of Columbia—is projecting a significant need for new resources.”

Jennings argued that Delaware also has a significant interest in seeing the project move forward.

“Portions of the proposed export cables are located under state-regulated wetlands and subaqueous lands in the Atlantic Ocean within Delaware state waters and the Indian River Bay,” Jennings wrote in her filing. “The underwater/underground export cables are proposed to land at 3R’s Beach in Delaware Seashore State Park, south of Bethany Beach, and to interconnect into a proposed substation to be constructed adjacent to the Indian River Power Plant in Sussex County, Delaware.”

She added that US Wind has made commitments for upgraded energy transmission facilities throughout Delaware, along with “substantial investments in onshore facilities to be located within Delaware Seashore State Park and at the Indian River site.”

The project and the issue

The project refers to an offshore wind farm approved in 2024 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. It would include 114 turbines, each 938 feet tall, to be built 10.7 miles off Ocean City’s coast. The Town of Ocean City sued, arguing the turbines would be visible from shore and could harm tourism, fishing and the environment.

The push from multiple sources to get this injunction through comes as lawyers from Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, representing US Wind, argued in an Oct. 15 filing that the company needs to move forward in order to survive. If the project goes away, they claim more than $322 million in investments already made may never be recouped.

“The loss of US Wind’s COP approval through the government’s execution of its revocation decision creates an existential threat to its entire business — and would cause irreparable financial and reputational harm even if somehow it did not permanently kill the project,” US Wind attorneys wrote.

They are requesting a preliminary injunction to block any further attempts to “vacate, remand, withdraw, rescind or in any way undermine US Wind’s Construction and Operations Plan” until U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher rules in the case.

Officials say the project is needed

Federal and state lawmakers, along with clean energy advocates, came out for a press conference in Baltimore on Friday to show their support for offshore wind projects.

“Investing in offshore wind is key to unlocking good-paying jobs, lowering energy costs, and guaranteeing a cleaner future for Maryland,” said U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen. “As the Trump administration continues to roll back the clock on our wind energy progress to help his Big Oil financiers and friends, I’ll keep fighting to realize Maryland’s wind energy potential and ensure we stay on course toward a stronger, more sustainable, more affordable future for our state.”

Maryland Energy Administration Director Paul Pinsky agreed.

“For so many of Maryland’s pressing questions, offshore wind energy is the answer. It benefits both the state’s climate and its economy. Offshore wind energy leads to more jobs for blue-collar workers and well-paying, year-round jobs in parts of the state that need them,” Pinsky said. “The bottom line is that offshore wind energy projects will help expand energy production for a state and a regional grid that badly needs more reliable production to meet growing demand — and it will do so in a way that doesn’t compound the climate crisis.”

As of Friday, lawyers for the U.S. Department of the Interior had yet to respond to US Wind’s request for an injunction. The judge in the case has given them until Nov. 5 to file their response, after which she will issue a ruling.

Have a news tip? Contact Emerging News Editor Brian Carlton at bcarlton@baltsun.com.

Covered buildings were supposed to submit data about their energy consumption by Oct. 1, the first of what will be annual reports on their progress toward reaching the goals within the 2022 Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS). That law requires a 20% reduction in the average direct greenhouse emissions of all commercial and multi-family buildings that are 35,000 square feet or larger by the year 2030. By 2035 the reduction must be 60% and then 100% by 2040.

The goal is to phase out older energy-generation methods like coal, natural gas, propane and heating oil, but businesspeople argue this is the wrong time to start.

“The economy’s shrinking and vacancies might well go up. To mandate commercial building owners to spend additional money at a time when their rent rolls are going to be decreasing is punitive,” Anne Arundel Chamber of Commerce CEO Mark Kleinschmidt said.

“While the chamber and many people support environmental standards, they need to be rational. The BEPS was a little bit overkill, too much too soon.”

‘The number may also go up’

Officials from Atlantic Realty Group agree this isn’t going to be cheap. The group, which operates 1,900 apartments in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, testified in General Assembly hearings earlier this year that its internal estimates put the cost of compliance at $40,000 per unit. That would translate into a rental increase of around $400 a month.

Speaking to The Baltimore Sun this week, Atlantic Vice President Rick Briemann said the rent increases might eventually be higher than originally expected, as he’s not able to take advantage of some federal grants.

“I think we may have to do some more analysis because some of the federal programs have gone away in regards to tax credits,” Briemann said. “The number may also go up as equipment prices keep on going up, but right now, I’d stick with the $400 number.”

This is also going to cause problems for residents when the work happens, Briemann said. In his earlier testimony, he said this isn’t something that can be done while people stay in their apartments. In some cases, tenants will have to move in order for the upgrades to be installed. That means more people looking for homes in an already crowded housing market.

Handing down exemptions and fines

Briemann is one of dozens of business representatives that testified against the proposal when it was still a bill, warning how it would hurt their companies and the Maryland economy. Now that it’s a law, the companies and business groups say nothing’s changed in terms of the projected impact.

They point to a 2023 study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, which found that between this year and 2040, all buildings included in the BEPS implementation will spend $8.8 billion on efficiency measures and $6.4 billion on electrification, while saving $8.96 billion.

Some building types are exempt from the law, including all agriculture structures, those used for manufacturing, hospitals and all K-12 schools. Building designated as historic by federal, state or local officials, also are exempt. Owners of all other structures, however, have to start planning or face fines, which start at $230 per metric ton of excess CO2 and increase annually.

“Compliance could mean millions in retrofit costs, adding pressure amid inflation and higher energy costs,” Maryland Chamber of Commerce officials said in a statement to The Sun. They also said the compliance fee is higher than the federal standard of $51 per ton.

Chamber representatives also questioned why state officials are asking companies, both big and small, to handle this on their own, with no grant or incentive program.

“The proposal lacks flexibility for older buildings or regional differences,” the chamber statement said.  What works for a building in Baltimore may not work in a place on the Eastern Shore and vice versa.

Beyond the cost, in some areas, business officials argue that stability is key. And what they have now is more trustworthy than what the state wants.

“In a hotel, a boiler is used to heat the water and is more efficient than an electrified heat pump as a heat pump draws much more energy,” said Susan Jones. She works as the Executive Director for the Ocean City Hotel-Motel-Restaurant Association. What happens, Jones said, when a large number of guests go to shower after beach time and the heat pump can’t handle the demand for hot water? The impact for that won’t fall on the state, it’ll fall on the business.

The state’s argument

On the state side, officials with the Maryland Department of Energy say their goal isn’t to fine companies. Instead, they say they want to work with each one to file what’s needed.

“We’re working with building owners, not against them, to help them adjust to the new program,” said Jay Apperson. He works as Deputy Director of the Office of Communications for the Maryland Department of the Environment.

He also challenged the claim that there was no flexibility, pointing to a deadline extension from Sept. 1 to Sept. 30 that was granted earlier to file the data energy consumption “benchmark” report.

“So far, thousands of building owners across Maryland have already submitted their data,” Apperson said. “Our focus this year is to make sure all eligible properties, including agricultural facilities, receive the exemptions they qualify for, while getting every covered building enrolled and benchmarking.”

A call to repeal

Political critics argue that BEPS mandates can be especially burdensome in rural and Eastern Shore counties with smaller tax bases, older building stock and fewer resources. They want to see the bill repealed.

“For that property owner, it could be millions of dollars to convert some of those buildings,” said Del. Wayne Hartman, a Republican representing Wicomico and Worcester counties. “For some of the infrastructure of the buildings that run on gas, there’s boilers in the basement that are the size of a train locomotive. The buildings are basically built around that infrastructure; it’s so big. So, it’s just not feasible.”

His comments were echoed by State Sen. Johnny Mautz, a Republican representing Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot, and Wicomico counties.

“If the BEP standards are implemented as is, it will increase electric demand and exacerbate the ongoing energy crisis felt by all Marylanders,” Mautz said. “From my view, the best solution is a repeal or long-term delay for implementation, but given the current political climate in Annapolis, we’d be very fortunate to have this limited to new construction only.”

Have a news tip? Contact Eastern Shore bureau chief Josh Davis at jdavis@baltsun.com or on X as @JoshDavis4Shore.

“The book is open. If there’s ever a path for the tram [to return] I think it’s something we’d all want to pursue,” he told The Baltimore Sun. “It’s not the decision we wanted to make.”

Many Ocean City visitors and residents consider the tram a nostalgic part of family fun at the beach, particularly those who have difficulty navigating the full 3-mile boardwalk. But tram service was suspended in August of last year after a 2-year-old boy was struck and killed.

The ensuing police investigation raised safety concerns and flagged multiple equipment violations in some tram cars, prompting law enforcement to advise Ocean City officials to treat the Boardwalk like a roadway. That meant complete compliance with state highway regulations and stricter licensing requirements for tram drivers, which Meehan said the resort town couldn’t keep up with.

“It became insurmountable and just something we’re not able to do at this time,” he said.

Ocean City residents want the tram

Ocean City residents acknowledged the safety concerns this week, but argued the tram — or something like it — is needed.

“A lot of people need help really going more than a few blocks,” Kristy Miller said. “It would be nice that, when they do come, that they would be able to see the whole Boardwalk.”

Speaking at the town council’s Monday meeting, Miller suggested the resort look at Atlantic City, New Jersey, or other communities where smaller tram cars operate on a regular basis.

“[Atlantic City] had multiple of them, and it seemed to be working out just fine,” she said. “Maybe our older version of a really long train could be discontinued, and we could do smaller ones.”

Wildwood, New Jersey, for example, operates a tram service, primarily with battery-operated units pulling the cars. That model is being re-examined, with the town this year testing out a hybrid Ford Maverick truck in the towing role. Atlantic City now uses more of a mini-bus model.

Speaking Monday at the Ocean City meeting, resident Martin Branigan said he and his wife enjoy the neighborhood aspects of the resort, even sometimes braving the Boardwalk during peak summer season, where they’ve ridden the tram for many years.

“We’re lucky. At our age, in the mid-70s, we can still walk it,” he said. “But the day’s going to come when we can’t.”

Along with not being able to walk the Boardwalk, Branigan said he’ll miss riding the tram through Northside Park during the annual Winterfest of Lights event each Christmas.

“I’m not looking forward to that day showing up,” he said. “I think this is really a disappointing decision.”

Have a news tip? Contact Eastern Shore bureau chief Josh Davis at jdavis@baltsun.com or on X as @JoshDavis4Shore.

“The vibrations alone from the pile driving necessary to install 114 turbines and 4 platforms as close as 10.9 miles off of our coast would be a definite deterrent to tourists visiting Ocean City, and it would have a major negative impact on our commercial and recreational fishing industries,” said Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan.

The mayor also pointed out that construction comes with a permanent impact.

“The question then becomes if the project is permanently stopped who would be responsible for removing any infrastructure that was already put in place?” Meehan asked. “Or would it remain as an obstruction to deteriorate off of our coast permanently?”

The project refers to an offshore wind farm approved in 2024 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). It would include 114 turbines, each 938 feet tall, to be built 10.7 miles off Ocean City’s coast. The Town of Ocean City sued, arguing the turbines would be visible from shore and could harm tourism, fishing and the environment.

Under the new federal administration, a Jan. 20 memo ordered the withdrawal of offshore wind leasing from all areas on the Outer Continental Shelf and a review of permitting practices. That was followed in August by a request from the Department of the Interior, which, speaking for BOEM, asked the court to vacate the wind farm’s approval. Federal officials said they had “identified an error” in the prior administration’s decision and that the review process needed to restart.

US Wind argues it’s needed

Lawyers from Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, representing US Wind, argued in an Oct. 15 filing the company needs to move forward in order to survive. If the project goes away, they claim more than $322 million in investments already made may never be recouped.

“The loss of US Wind’s COP approval through the Government’s execution of its Revocation Decision creates an existential threat to its entire business—and would cause irreparable financial and reputational harm even if somehow it did not permanently kill the Project,” U.S. Wind attorneys wrote.

They are requesting a preliminary injunction to block any further attempts to “vacate, remand, withdraw, rescind or in any way undermine US Wind’s Construction and Operations Plan” until U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher rules in the case.

An injunction is also necessary, US Wind lawyers argued, because of political pressure surrounding the case.

“The Government’s actions in the instant case have plainly been motivated by political pressure and undue influence and must therefore be set aside,” lawyers for US Wind wrote. “There is voluminous public evidence that improper political considerations are driving the Government’s decision-making process. Furthermore, the harms caused by this undue political influence are already manifest and will continue to grow.”

As evidence, the attorneys include multiple public statements by President Donald Trump blaming wind turbines for the death of whales, calling wind energy “THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY” and promising to “end wind development.” They also cited a Sept. 11, 2025 Energy Watch article quoting Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum as saying “under this administration, there is not a future [for wind projects].”

“One only needs to review the totality of this Administration’s actions—public statements, industry-wide orders and memoranda, actions intended to halt offshore wind projects, and corollary actions to harm US Wind—to understand that there is “no doubt” about the endgame: termination of the Project,” US Wind attorneys wrote.

What happens next?

On Friday, federal lawyers asked Judge Gallagher to grant them an extension of time to respond to the injunction request. The current deadline is Oct. 29, but federal attorneys asked for an extension to Nov. 5 due to a death in the family.

“Counsel for Federal Defendants will be travelling the week of October 20th for a family member’s funeral,” the request stated, noting that US Wind attorneys had no problem with an extension.

Have a news tip? Contact Eastern Shore bureau chief Josh Davis at jdavis@baltsun.com or on X as @JoshDavis4Shore. Contact Emerging News Editor Brian Carlton at bcarlton@baltsun.com.

“I’ve been in law enforcement for 41 years, never have I needed guidance from anyone, let alone Maryland’s attorney general, on the requirements of Maryland law enforcement when working with federal law enforcement agencies,” said Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis.

“What frustrates me is this is not the first cautionary guidance we’ve received on this very same issue from the Attorney General’s Office, and we sheriffs and we chiefs believe that they’re sending it out for no other reason than to intimidate us and hope that we’re going to stand down.”

In January, Brown issued guidance saying that local agencies couldn’t share personal information with ICE without a warrant, must not extend detentions to investigate a person’s immigration status and are prohibited from contracting with private immigration detention facilities. Brown also cautioned then that agencies and individual officers can’t ask about a person’s immigration status unless it’s relevant to a criminal case.

And on Wednesday, Brown sent out a memo reminding recipients that Maryland law restricts how local and state law enforcement agencies can interact with federal agents. “While performing regular police functions, Maryland officers may not enforce civil immigration laws or assist federal agents in enforcing such laws,” the memo said. It also cautioned that Maryland officers must “properly use body-worn cameras” and “are subject to civilian oversight.”

‘There is a healthy concern’

A spokesperson for Brown’s office said in a written statement to The Sun Thursday that the most recent memo was meant to clear up potential confusion.

“The federal government has taken a more active approach to local law enforcement in recent months, often over the objections of state and local officials, and has threatened to increase its presence in Maryland,” said OAG Spokesperson Kelsey Hartman.

“We have also seen an increase in federal agents’ requests for assistance from local and State police,” Hartman said. “This guidance is intended to help our police officers navigate these situations. Particularly given that Maryland and federal law enforcement agencies are not necessarily governed by the same laws and rules, we wanted to help provide greater clarity on the laws and policies Maryland law enforcement officers must follow even when assisting federal law enforcement.”

Guidance like this from an attorney general is meant for two audiences, said Cori Alonso-Yoder. She works as both the Director of the Immigration Clinic and as an Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law.

“This should be the operating order for Maryland police, for those on the ground,” Alonso-Yoder said. “[But] the guidance is not just for the police. There is a healthy concern that people who are witnesses, people who are victims will not come forward, out of fear of being detained.”

Details like this, Alonso-Yoder said, are meant to help the community understand what is and isn’t allowed, to alleviate some of that fear when it comes to local law enforcement. It’s also meant as a reminder to agencies.

‘Important public safety partnership’

Some Maryland sheriffs see it a different way.

Lewis said he knows state law and didn’t need a reminder. If Brown wanted to alleviate concerns, he said, he could have done it with a news release, rather than guidance directed to the agencies.

“We’ve been well aware of what we can and cannot do,” Lewis said. “But they’re trying to intimidate us and trying to coerce us into not cooperating with the federal government.”

Wicomico has discussed signing a partnership agreement with ICE, with a proposal expected to come before the county council in November. Nothing Brown said on Wednesday will change that, Lewis said.

In Harford County, Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler reacted similarly. Harford is one of eight counties currently operating with an ICE partnership in Maryland. The others are Alleghany, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, St. Mary’s and Washington. Gahler argued the guidance doesn’t affect his department, as their partnership is jail-based.

“All individuals who are arrested for committing crimes in our community, are screened after they are booked into the Harford County Detention Center,” Gahler said. “If they are found to be in the country illegally, that information is shared to ICE, who will make a deportation determination based on their priorities of public safety and national security.  The program fully complies with Maryland law, and nothing in the Attorney General’s guidance impacts this important public safety partnership.”

Gahler added the guidance comes across more like a political publication than a practical directive.

“My concern is that it could be misinterpreted in a way that discourages law enforcement from sending aid to federal partners during real criminal emergencies, such as the assaults on federal officers and other acts of violence we have witnessed across the United States,” Gahler said.

ICE partnership models

Beyond the task force model, which isn’t used in Maryland, there are two types of ICE partnerships with law enforcement. The Warrant Service Officer model allows local officers to serve existing federal warrants. The Jail Enforcement model, which Harford uses, pays for training so corrections officers can check the immigration status of suspects in local jails. These partnerships are voluntary, with counties and cities able to approve or reject them as desired.

Cecil County Sheriff Scott Adams, whose department also uses the Jail Enforcement model, said the guidance wouldn’t affect their partnership for the same reason as Harford. He agreed with the other sheriffs as to the political nature of the document.

Baltimore County officials said they’re still reading through the document.

“The Department is in the process of fully reviewing the AG guidance in order to ensure that our policies comply with all applicable laws,” Baltimore County Police Spokesman Trae Corbin said.

Alonso-Yoder says guidance like this does not impact current Maryland partnerships, because those aren’t dealing with law enforcement. Both models used in the state involve people who have already been arrested, charged and are in the local jail.

“It’s saying there should not be on the ground [immigration] enforcement from police,” Alonso-Yoder said. “But the partnerships are about people who have already been booked.”

It’s a much less restrictive version of the policy employed by Prince George’s County. In 2019, the county council voted to ban police and other agencies from working with ICE. The only exemption is for any serious criminal issues.

Joint statement of resistance

Currently, 21 states have either publicly refused to work with ICE or taken legal action against the agency. In January, Brown, along with 12 other attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, issued a joint statement, arguing the Constitution prevented federal officials from forcing states to enforce federal laws.

Over the course of this year, the federal government has filed lawsuits against states and cities whose policies are seen as obstructing immigration enforcement. Federal officials have also threatened to take away grant funding in some cases, from states that don’t comply with ICE.

That last part is allowed. In a 2019 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, the court upheld the U.S. Department of Justice’s ability to give preferential treatment to cities that cooperate with federal immigration authorities when handing out law-enforcement grants, as that was found to be germane to enhancing public safety.

Have a news tip? Contact Eastern Shore bureau chief Josh Davis at jdavis@baltsun.com or on X as @JoshDavis4Shore. Contact Emerging News Editor Brian Carlton at bcarlton@baltsun.com.