FOJM Response to DNR’s “An Open Letter to the Kingsville Community.” Click here to read that letter.

The Friends of Jerusalem Mill (FOJM) has published the following response to the letter. We believe the letter is deceptive in its overall tone and contains false statements as outlined in our response.  Please read our response below.

We disagree with the premise of the title and many of the statements in this Open Letter.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

Their Open Letter states “DNR is Committed to Preserving the Historic Jerusalem Mill Village”  HERE ARE THE FACTS:  The DNR already has taken five concrete actions that have or will diminish the historical integrity of the village.  See Addendum at the end of this letter for the specifics.  

The statement that the “DNR has partnered with” us is disingenuous and deceptive. HERE ARE THE FACTS: The DNR does not provide any funds or any manpower for any of our programs, events, tours, maintenance, repairs, restoration or preservation. In fact, they don’t even attend any of the programs or events, so we question how this is a “partnership.”  

In their Open Letter, the DNR  states that it “deeply values the work and volunteer contributions that Friends of Jerusalem Mill provides.”  HERE ARE THE FACTS:  The DNR has refused to meet with the FOJM to discuss our concerns.  The DNR has ignored most of our emails. There was not one meeting held to discuss our concerns in the entire year of 2025. They only met with us for two hours in 2026 because the meetings were requested by Senator J.B. Jennings. A refusal to meet with us or even politely reply to our emails does not leave us feeling valued. If they “deeply valued” our work, they wouldn’t demand that we cancel future events unless we sign a new agreement that automatically cancels our 20-year lease and allows them to cancel that new agreement at any time, forcing us to transfer our financial assets to the DNR (a direct violation of our Articles of Incorporation). 

We question the statement that the DNR “advocated before the General Assembly to extend a $250,000 state grant”. If they did so, we would like to know in what form their advocacy was provided. The Open Letter may be interpreted as though the DNR appeared before the General Assembly. HERE ARE THE FACTS: The extension was introduced by Senator J.B. Jennings NOT the DNR. A fact missing from the Open Letter is that the only reason why an extension was necessary is because the DNR delayed providing a Use Agreement, required by DNR, to our construction contractor after first identifying the requirement in May of 2020! It wasn’t until Senator J.B. Jennings requested a meeting with the Secretary in March of this year that the DNR took action on the requirement, then decided that a Use Agreement wasn’t the appropriate document and finally issued a Right of Entry Agreement in April 2026. This caused a six-month delay in signing the construction contract, putting us precariously close to the expiration of the $250,000 State bond.

The Open Letter states that our lease agreement “enables the Friends group to fundraise, offer historical interpretation, and host public programs.  HERE ARE THE FACTS: The DNR is attempting to modify our lease agreement to eliminate the subleases which essentially IS reducing our fundraising efforts by $30,000 - $40,000. They are also demanding that we cancel our events which represent another major source of our fundraising revenue, averaging $57,000 per year.

The Open Letter says that the termination of our authority to sublease “is a department-wide policy shift that is applicable to all outside organizations operating on state land.” HERE ARE THE FACTS: In the next paragraph they admit that we’re the only leaseholder that “holds the privilege of subleasing state-owned homes to private tenants…” So, they say it’s a state-wide policy while admitting it only affects FOJM.

The above quoted “policy shift” is actually irrelevant, since the “policy” doesn’t apply to our lease agreement! The policy referred to in the Open Letter is the DNR Administrative Policy titled “Residential Housing”, Policy #2024-01, amended on January 1, 2026. The “Scope” of this policy states “This policy governs all full-time, merit-based employees of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources”. The stated “Purpose” reads, “The purpose of this policy is to establish a fair, equitable, and transparent process for DNR to lease DNR housing to DNR employees.” HERE ARE THE FACTS: Nowhere in the policy does it state they can only lease to DNR employees or that they cannot continue to lease to other entities. The Open Letter also fails to mention that the DNR leases about 50 residences to non-employees who lease from the DNR under a program called the “Resident Curatorship Program”, further proof that their policy does not preclude the DNR from leasing to non-employees.

Regarding the subleasing issue, the DNR also claims that the Bureau of Public Works Advisory 2006-2, titled “DNR-Managed Property Leases”, prohibits subleasing. That’s partially true. HERE ARE THE FACTS: The Advisory actually states “Subleasing Only with Board Approval: All leases must prohibit the tenant from assigning or subleasing the property without prior approval from the Board of Public Works (BPW).” The Open Letter failed to mention that our 20-year lease agreement, which includes a specific provision allowing us to sublease part or all of three buildings, was approved and signed by the BPW (i.e. the Governor, Comptroller and Treasurer).

If the DNR’s concern is “department-vetted individuals”, they could simply request to “vet” any future tenants. However, one should question the effectiveness of their vetting process. HERE ARE THE FACTS: Of the three housing leases in the village over the past 15 years, two were subleases through FOJM and one was a direct lease by DNR. Of those three, the only one with criminal activity was the direct lease by DNR. The DNR has also repeatedly cited a case involving criminal activity in another park-leased house in another area of the park. However, that was a DNR-owned house, leased by DNR to a DNR employee who filed charges against another DNR employee. Regardless, neither case had anything to do with FOJM or any other non-profit leasing or subleasing DNR housing.

In conclusion, don’t be fooled by the deceptive intent and language used by the DNR in its Open Letter. LOOK AT THE FACTS and decide for yourself.  

Addendum

Five actions taken by The DNR that have or will diminish the historical integrity of the village. 

1) They are converting a house in the village that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places into administrative office spaces.

2) Along with the house conversion, they have already removed four healthy trees and expanded their staff parking lot, right next to the 1772 grist mill (see before and after photos on first attachment - taken from in front of the mill). We proposed an alternative that would hide the vehicles behind a building, so visitors wouldn’t see all of those modern vehicles as soon as they entered the village, but that proposal was ignored.

3) They have also installed an EV station next to the 1772 grist mill, although you can’t see the EV station in the photos because their Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles are parked in front of it. (See attached photos.)

4) They have proposed a project to build a mountain bike course within the property boundaries of the village. The current status of that project has not been shared with us.

5) They have replaced one of our artifact display pavilions with a modern shed, and sometimes park a truck next to it, right next to the oldest extant building in the village (c. 1769). They had promised to install a privacy fence next to the driveway to hide the shed, but that wasn’t done. (See attached photos.)

These actions do not demonstrate that the “DNR is fully committed to protecting Jerusalem Mill’s cultural and historical integrity,” as they claim in their Open Letter. Focus on their actions, not their words.