BMW to move hub to Tradepoint Atlantic
German automaker BMW is relocating its vehicle distribution center in the Port of Baltimore from the state-owned Dundalk Marine Terminal to Tradepoint Atlantic, scaling up its capacity in Baltimore County’s burgeoning distribution hub.
The carmaker says the move to a 75,000square foot facility will nearly double the space the company has at its current location on Broening Highway. BMW will continue to operate at the Dundalk through September as the carrier transitions to Tradepoint.
The new facility will handle BMW and Mini vehicles imported from Europe and Mexico and distributed to 126 dealers in the eastern and midwest regions of the United States.
Workers at the facility will perform vehicle inspections, accessory installations, repairs and maintenance.
The new processing center will create about 60 additional jobs when it opens in September.
BMW said the new center will process about 100,000 vehicles each year. That’s double the number of vehicles of the company’s initial deal with the port in March 2010.
BMW will join fellow German automaker Volkswagen at Tradepoint. Volkswagen
imports about 120,000 VW, Audi, Bentley and Lamborghini vehicles through the facility each year.
“This massive new facility is the latest step forward in Tradepoint Atlantic’s ongoing transformation into a leading hub for global commerce,” Baltimore County Executive
Johnny Olszewski, Jr. said in a statement.
BMW officials called the Port of Baltimore “the number one hub for roll-on/roll-off cargo in the U.S.,” in a news release.
BMW is the fourth new company to lease space at Tradepoint Atlantic in the last year amid the pandemic.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will take up challenges to controversial Trump administration policies affecting family-planning clinics and immigrants, even though the Biden administration has announced it is reviewing them.
The justices agreed to hear appeals over the Trump policy that keeps taxpayer-funded clinics from referring women for abortions and the “public charge” rule that could deny permanent residency status to immigrants because of their use of food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers or other public benefits.
The cases won’t be argued before the fall, and they could be affected by President Joe Biden’s orders to potentially reconsider both policies. Biden called for a “top-to-bottom” review of the public charge rule earlier this month.
Federal appeals courts in Chicago, New York and San Francisco have invalidated the rule, but it remains in effect pending the final outcome of the cases, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
Under the Trump administration policy, applicants for green cards have to show they wouldn’t be burdens to the country or “public charges.”
Federal law already required those seeking permanent residency or legal status to prove they wouldn’t be a “public charge.”
But the Trump administration rule included a wider range of programs that could disqualify them.
Immigrant rights advocates deemed it a “wealth test,” while public health experts said it would mean poorer health outcomes and rising costs as low-income migrants chose between needed services and their bid to stay in the country legally.
Global deaths
Dear Amy: I was with my former partner for several years. He traveled often for work.
We had what I thought was a very happy relationship and were both professionally and financially successful. We bought a home together when I was close to completing my master’s degree.
A week after moving in, I discovered he’d been living a double life with another woman (with children). They were planning to take a “family trip” together (including her kids and parents). She knew nothing of me.
I then learned that his affairs had been going on for years with various women, and that he’d also had trysts with strangers. In addition to all this, he possessed tons of “upskirt” photos of various young women who were obviously being photographed surreptitiously.
After this discovery, I immediately left him.
After moving out, I ran a background check and discovered that years ago, he was charged (but not convicted) of molesting a minor “younger than 12.”
In light of what I now know about him, I am extremely concerned.
Should I reach out to the women whose contact information I have and prompt them to look him up and do with the information what they will regarding their own children?
I have been wrestling with this question for nearly a year now. I don’t want to behave as a woman scorned, but I do often think about what harm he could be capable of, and it weighs on my conscience that I’ve remained silent. — Only In Bad Movies
I wouldn’t describe your situation as “a woman scorned” so much as “a woman not warned.” The minute you learned about your guy’s double life, you packed up and left the relationship. Good for you!
Fully examine your motives. If your sole motive is to spare another woman what you went through or protect her children, then warn her.
Understand that when you attempt to warn another woman about your ex’s behavior, you must not defame him. Report only about what happened to you and the facts you know and urge any woman who has questions to also do a background check.
Your ex will probably portray you as “a woman scorned.” It is likely that he is gaslighting his current partners the way he did you, but your strength now is in not caring what he thinks of you.
Dear Bad Movies:
Dear Amy: My niece is getting married in two months. It is an indoor wedding. I love her dearly, but do not feel safe attending anything where people will be eating and talking without masks.
What is the right thing to do here? I have many health issues.
— Worried Relative
Dear Worried: People have varied responses to the CDC recommendations during the pandemic, but you have an absolute obligation to guard your own health.
The right thing to do is to decline the invitation if you don’t feel comfortable attending. Send your niece and her fiancé a warmly worded note.
It isn’t necessary for you to lay on too many details regarding why you won’t be able to attend, but wish them well and tell them both that you look forward to seeing them in person as soon as you get the “all clear.”
Dear Amy: “Confused Mom” asked you a question about “polyamory.” Apparently, her son and his wife had taken on an extra “partner” in their marriage and wanted to force this relationship onto the rest of the family.
This is adultery, plain and simple, and your acceptance of it is immoral.
— Upset!
Dear Upset!: I don’t view polyamory as adultery, because all parties are consenting to the relationship. “Confused Mom” was seeking a way to understand this, knowing that her relationship with her son hinged on her willingness to accept this unusual relationship triangle.
As parents, I believe we are called upon to find ways to love and accept our children, unless their choices are deliberately harmful. I don’t believe that polyamory is the gateway to happiness, but that same caution would also apply to many conventional marriages.
I’d love to hear from people who grew up in polyamorous households.