By Adam Pagnucco.
Editor’s note: After I drafted this post but before I published it, Bethesda Today wrote about this issue. You can read their coverage here.
Starting in the mid-19th century, a group of formerly enslaved African Americans founded and lived in Emory Grove, a community located in what is now eastern Gaithersburg. That community lasted until the 1960s, when Montgomery County government began implementing urban renewal policies that dismantled it and permanently displaced its residents. Now a new report by a task force established under state law has revived that history and raises the question of what we should do about it.
First, some context. Last spring, Delegate Charlotte Crutchfield (D-19) introduced a bill passed by the General Assembly establishing a task force to examine how urban renewal resulted in the displacement of Emory Grove residents from the 1960s through the 1980s. Last month, the task force released its interim report summarizing the history of that community. A future report, due a year from now, will contain the findings of engagement with displaced residents and present recommendations for remedies.
Urban renewal has a long and complicated history in the United States and elsewhere. Its basic concept is to clear “blighted” areas and fill them with new residential and commercial projects. Markets may do this organically over time, but urban renewal typically involves direct government action. The U.S. went through a prolonged urban renewal period starting after World War II, as a combination of federal law and funding and local action changed communities all over the country. Some of these projects resulted in mass displacement with a disparate impact on specific racial groups. What happened in Emory Grove is one example.
The task force’s interim report (available for download below) begins by describing Emory Grove prior to urban renewal. It states:
*****
Emory Grove was established in the 1860s by formerly enslaved African Americans. Residents built homes, a church, a school, and community institutions that supported religious life, education, recreation, and mutual aid. For generations, Emory Grove functioned as a stable, close-knit Black community characterized by land ownership, cultural continuity, and intergenerational ties.
Despite its longevity, Emory Grove was subject to racialized land-use patterns and unequal public investment. Nearby White communities received municipal services decades earlier, while Emory Grove residents faced persistent exclusion from infrastructure improvements, including sewer and water systems.
*****
In the 1960s, Montgomery County government began using federal urban renewal policies – with accompanying applications for federal funding – to identify and remedy “blighted” areas. The report states, “Emory Grove was designated as an urban renewal area in the mid-1960s. County records indicate that the lack of piped water and sewer service, housing conditions, and development pressures were central justifications for this designation.” So the absence of water and sewer service – a direct result of government policy – was cited as a reason for “renewal.”
That renewal was aggressive. The report states:
*****
From approximately 1970 through the late 1970s, Montgomery County acquired land in Emory Grove through negotiated purchases and, in some cases, condemnation. Records indicate that: – More than 160 acres were included in the renewal area; – Over 80 structures were demolished; – At least 112 households and 20 individuals were displaced; – Approximately 102 of the displaced households were African American.
Although appraisals and purchase prices were documented, the Task Force notes concerns regarding whether compensation reflected fair market value, replacement cost, or lost generational wealth…
Displaced residents were relocated to a mix of public housing, rental housing within Montgomery County, housing outside the county, or out of state. While relocation assistance was provided in accordance with federal requirements, evidence suggests that: – Homeownership opportunities for displaced residents were limited; – Many former homeowners became renters; – Few families were able to return to Emory Grove.
*****
The report noted losses in family landholdings and home equity, community gathering spaces and institutions, intergenerational wealth-building opportunities and a cohesive sense of place and identity.
Let’s reflect on the nature of this story. Resident displacement often occurs because of changing market conditions. Markets both create opportunities and take them away; that’s their nature. But properly regulated markets can deliver more value than they delete. In this case, displacement was created by direct government action.
A 1980 article in the Washington Post – Emory Grove Finds Urban Renewal Has Bittersweet Flavor – paints a more complicated picture than the task force’s report. According to the Post, some Emory Grove residents perceived urban renewal as a “way out” of substandard living conditions. The Post also stated, “Urban renewal improved living conditions, both residents and county officials agree.” However, subsequent events did not play out as residents hoped. Here’s the take of William Duvall, proprietor of the Du-Drop Inn, a well-known club in the enclave:
“We were given a good price,” said Duvall, who now rents his tavern property from the county. “But there were two problems. First, you had all the people who didn’t own and land so they wouldn’t get any money anyhow. Then there were the folks who had homes that needn’t have been torn down. But when they saw how much money they could get, they were the first to sell.”
As an example, he cited the price of $168,500 paid for three acres of land and one commercial building on it.
Twenty-four homes had the facilities required under the county code.
“These people were the core of the community,” said Duvall. “When they left, things went sour.”
Most bought homes elsewhere in the county.
In the next phase of its activity, the task force intends to “complete review of outstanding archival and legal and legislative records, including appraisal methodologies and condemnation proceedings, conduct structured engagement with former residents and descendants, analyze comparative reparative frameworks used by other jurisdictions, develop eligibility criteria and cost scenarios for potential remedies… [and] assess legal, legislative, fiscal, and administrative feasibility of proposed actions.” The final report is due on December 15, 2026.
In the meantime, this episode from the county’s not-so-distant past deserves public attention. I hope the county council interviews the task force in public session and gives them an opportunity to discuss their findings.
The task force’s interim report is available for download below.
Interim Report and Findings Submitted by the Emory Grove Task Force-December 2025