Connect with us

Local

Obstacles remain in Baltimore Eagle reopening

Renovations could top $1 million

Published

on

Baltimore Eagle, gay news, Washington Blade
Baltimore Eagle, gay news, Washington Blade

The Baltimore Eagle closed in 2012. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Baltimore Eagle, a mainstay of Baltimore’s leather community since 1991, closed in December 2012 following its sale, leaving many in the community uncertain as to the bar’s fate.

Charles Parrish and Ian Parrish purchased the property and vowed to re-open it again as the Baltimore Eagle after renovations are completed. But when Ian Parrish came in to further examine the premises located at 2022 N. Charles St. following the sale, the magnitude of the work needed to complete the project was, as he put it, “the worst possible case.”

According to the website of the Community Law Center, a nonprofit law firm that provides legal services to community and nonprofit organizations throughout Maryland, “There was a lien on the property that the title search did not pick up. The property was full of garbage and had been used for drugs and prostitution. The roof was collapsing and the mortar between the bricks was turning to sand. The Parrishes had to gut the building. So far, he [sic] has expended $150,000 and the project will probably end up costing around $1 million.” This does not include the purchase price.

Parrish indicated that a dumpster a day for a month was needed to remove the trash, two large box trucks of furniture and personal items were donated to Habitat for Humanity, and even more truckloads of items were sent for recycling. Other work, such as the installation of an electrical line from BGE and a six-month permitting process, were essential to bring the building up to code.

“We took bed sheets off the wall covering structural problems. . . there were goods and memorabilia collected over 30 years. It was 10,000 square feet of hoarder space,” Parrish said.  As a result of these unexpected delays, the 180-day requirement needed to complete construction was not met to satisfy the Baltimore Liquor Board, thus placing the entire project in jeopardy.

Throughout this period, the Parrish family stated that they kept neighboring civic associations, city officials and others abreast of the ongoing developments. During a contentious hearing with the liquor board on March 12, the Parrishes along with their attorney Melvin Kodenski argued that their application for a transfer of ownership be approved since the scope of the reconstruction warranted an extension of the 180-day guideline.

Kodenski noted that in the past, such extensions were granted for cases of fire, arson, redevelopment and other issues. He cited a case, Woodfield v. West River Improvement Association, which he said held that the board does not have to enforce the 180-day provision, if it chooses not to.

One of the three-member Liquor Board commissioners, Dana Petersen Moore, strongly rebuked Kodenski’s argument saying, “all of that went out the window after the audit. Those policies and procedures were wrong.” Indeed, the audit she referred to criticized previous commissioners for disregarding Maryland law and new commissioners were appointed—two by then-Gov. Martin O’Malley and one by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake—to enforce the rules more stringently.

Tom Ward, a former judge who was appointed to chair the board, told Kodenski to submit a legal memorandum delineating the circumstances for why the board should extend the timeframe. Ward remarked during the hearing, “It looks to me like maybe you bought something that you shouldn’t have bought.”

Kodenski would have to find legal precedent but would need to go outside of Baltimore City since the past liquor board’s actions have been criticized based on the audit. Ward stated that if he cannot be convinced to extend the 180-day rule after reviewing Kodenski’s memorandum, the liquor license would be considered dead.

Much of the arguments at the March 12 hearing focused on turf battles among various civic associations and over process and not knowing the plans for the establishment. Representatives from the Charles North Community Association and the Charles Village Civic Association opposed the extension. Kelly Cross, president of the Old Goucher Community Association, was in support of the project stating that the neighborhood is in need of nightlife entertainment.

Ian Parrish remains optimistic that these issues will be resolved and will soon unveil his new management team.  “They said I shouldn’t have bought that building, but I think this neighborhood and this bar are worth the risk,” Parrish told the Blade.  “The groundwork is laid, our construction team is standing by, and as soon as the eight people who oppose this project get out of the way, we can get to work.”

The Baltimore Eagle’s website still points to a 2015 re-opening.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Rehoboth Beach

Women’s FEST returns to Rehoboth Beach next week

Golf tournament, mini-concerts, meetups planned for silver anniversary festival

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photo by Daniel Truitt)

Women’s+ FEST 2026 will begin on Thursday, April 9 at CAMP Rehoboth Community Center.

The festival will celebrate a remarkable milestone in 2026: its silver anniversary. For 25 years, Women’s+ FEST has brought fun and entertainment for all those on the spectrum of the feminine spirit. There will be a variety of events including a golf tournament, mini-concerts and happy hour meetups.

For more information, visit Camp Rehoboth’s website.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

How new barriers to health care coverage are hitting D.C.

Federally qualified health centers bracing for influx of newly uninsured patients

Published

on

Erin Loubier, vice president for access and strategic initiatives at Whitman-Walker Health. (Courtesy photo)

Washington, D.C. has the second-lowest rate of people who lack health insurance in the country, but many residents are facing new barriers to health care due to provisions of the sweeping federal law passed in July, which threatens access for thousands. 

Changes to insurance eligibility and the rising cost of premiums, which kicked in for some in October and others more recently, are expected to leave many more patients uninsured or unable to afford medical care. Federally qualified health centers, including D.C.’s Whitman-Walker Health, where 10 to 12 percent of patients are uninsured, are bracing for an influx of newly uninsured patients while facing their own financial challenges. 

Even in D.C., where uninsured rates have been among the lowest in the country, changes brought on by the passage of the Republican mega bill (known as the “Big Beautiful Bill”) will have major effects. 

The changes from the bill affect Medicaid, which is free to low-income patients, and subsidies for insurance that people buy on the health insurance exchanges that were started under the Affordable Care Act, which were allowed to expire on Dec. 31. 

Erin Loubier, vice president for access and strategic initiatives at Whitman-Walker Health, says some Whitman-Walker Health patients have received notices about premium increases, including several who say the increases are up to 1,000 percent more than they were paying. 

“That is like paying rent,” she says. “We live in an expensive city, so any increases are going to be really, really hard on people.”

Whitman-Walker Health and other healthcare providers are expecting the changes to have multiple effects — some patients may not be able to afford coverage or may avoid going to the doctor and allow health conditions to worsen because they can’t afford care, and many more will be seeking care who don’t have insurance. 

“I’m worried that we’re going to not just have people who can’t get care, but that they delay care until they’re really sick, and then the care is not as effective because they might have waited too long, and then we may have a less healthy population,” Loubier says.

Loubier says delaying care, and serving more people without insurance has major implications for Whitman-Walker Health and other health centers serving the community.

“There’s going to be a lot of pressure on us to try to find and raise more money, and that’s going to be harder, because I think all organizations who provide health care are going to be facing this,” she says. 

The U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world, and has much higher out-of-pocket costs for individuals. But in other countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and many others, health care is much less expensive — or even free.

Even though the U.S. has a high-priced healthcare system, critics say there are still ways to bring down costs by forcing insurance and pharmaceutical companies to absorb more of the costs, rather than transferring the costs to patients.

“In the U.S., they end up trying to cut costs at the person’s level, not at the level of the different corporations or structures that are making a lot of money in healthcare,” said Loubier. “Our system is so complicated and there is probably waste in it, but I don’t think that that cost and waste is at the ‘people’ level. I think it’s higher up at the system level, but that is much, much harder to get people to try to make cuts at that end.”

Ultimately at Whitman-Walker Health, healthcare providers and insurance navigators are planning to help with everyday necessities when it comes to healthcare coverage and striving to provide healthcare in partnership with patients, said Loubier.

“The key here is we’re going to have a lot of people who may lose insurance, and they’re going to rely on places like Whitman-Walker Health and other community health centers, so we have to figure out how we keep providing that care,” she said. 

(This article was written by a student in the journalism program at Bard High School Early College DC. This work is part of a partnership between the Washington Blade Foundation and Youthcast Media Group, funded through the FY26 Community Development Grant from the Office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.)

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Mayor Bowser signs bill requiring insurers to cover PrEP

‘This is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS’

Published

on

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser on March 20 signed a bill approved by the D.C. Council that requires health insurance companies to cover the costs of HIV prevention or PrEP drugs for D.C. residents at risk for HIV infection.

Like all legislation approved by the Council and signed by the mayor, the bill, called the PrEP D.C. Amendment Act, was sent to Capitol Hill for a required 30-day congressional review period before it takes effect as D.C. law.

Gay D.C. Council member Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5) last year introduced the bill.

Insurance coverage for PrEP drugs has been provided through coverage standards included in the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. But AIDS advocacy organizations have called on states and D.C. to pass their own legislation requiring insurance coverage of PrEP as a safeguard in case federal policies are weakened or removed by the Trump administration, which has already reduced federal funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs.

Like legislation passed by other states, the PrEP D.C. Amendment Act requires insurers to cover all PrEP drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Studies have shown that PrEP drugs, which can be taken as pills or by injection just twice a year, are highly effective in preventing HIV infection.

“I think this is a win for our community,” Parker said after the D.C. Council voted unanimously to approve the bill on its first vote on the measure in February. “And this is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS.”  

Continue Reading

Popular