Government - http://maxpages.com/minnickward4/LETTERS_TO_THE

Updated 4/1/01

LETTER FROM Joe Antush:

The threat of the referendum on the sewer ordinance called attention to
the fact that the sewer agreement as negotiated by the city with the
developers is not fair to the current residents. I believe we will be paying
more to have a sewer installed into our homes than what the developers will
pay. I also believe if a deal had been made with LORCO our sewer would cost
us less. However, the city has chosen to deal with the developers, but they
will have to live with that.
As STAMP members have said many times, we are not opposed to the sewer.
The citizens having to pay more than they should for a sewer is not right,
but it will not ruin the city or the neighborhoods. Urban sprawl, high
density, traffic congestion and allowing commercial areas into residential
areas WILL ruin them.
The STAMP committee will direct its efforts to the reason it was formed -
resisting the negative aspects of these PCD developments. The placing of the
emergency clause onto the sewer ordinance angered many citizens and almost
caused the referendum to be vigorously pursued. One can only wonder why the
administration and five members of council do such foolish things. And then
they wonder why there is turmoil in the city.
If an ordinance is enacted that has a great impact on the citizens, and if
there is a disagreement and the citizens are opposed enough to make the
effort to referendum the ordinance and they get enough signatures, then
placing the issue on the ballot will solve it. That's why that provision was
put into our charter. Denying the right to referendum will only cause what is
happening in North Ridgeville.
STAMP members are not fighting to impose our will upon the city. We are
fighting for the residents to have that right, and that includes the right to
free speech.

LETTER FROM GAIL MINNICK, September 13, 2000:

I would like to comment on some statements made in last week's P&L. Unfounded accusations are again being made that the Charter amendment petitions were politically motivated and that people were lied to. A council member stated taxpayers would have to pay for special elections to place rezoning issues on the ballot. All are inaccurate statements. Special elections will not be held unless the developer pays for them, STAMP members consist of both Democrats and Republicans and appear to be quite knowledgeable of the issues! With so many misleading statements being made in newspapers lately, how will the truth ever be known?!

Highland Heights, Cleveland Magazine's No. 1 rated city, has the same Charter amendment on their books that our voters are requesting. Many other communities in Cuyahoga County have similar laws. Are they wrong or does our mayor fear loss of control if the Charter amendment passes?

I happily voted for the Charter amendment to be placed on the ballot. Planning Commission meetings have been packed with residents who voiced their concerns about PCDs and other rezoning issues. They were ignored. Residents in the past have packed Council Chambers voicing concerns to council members and the administration. They were ignored. Residents appear to have given up on attending meetings recently, evidently thinking it a waste of their valuable time. Instead, petitions were signed hoping that their voices would be heard at the polls. However, our law director made some questionable decisions nullifying the Kingston referendum petition. Will STAMP get a fair ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court on the Writ of Mandamus? What negative comments will be made regarding voters' ability (or lack of) to make a decision on the Charter amendment?

Mayor Hill needs to brush up on her facts. The Master Plan was passed in December, 1998, without any mention of PCDs. If readers will remember, prior to passage massive changes were discovered and members of the Master Plan committee, who worked tirelessly for six years, had not been consulted. Then in June, 1999, along came a proposed sewer agreement between developers, containing Exhibit E as part of the deal "creating a new zoning category and specifying, among other matters, planned development....." The proposed sewer agreement deviated from the preferred route in the Master Plan, was never signed by the parties involved, nor voted on by council. I have been unable to obtain a copy of Exhibit E. Was Exhibit E the PUD, now PCD ordinance? The PCD ordinance was introduced in August, 1999, poorly written in my opinion, and adopted in September 20, 1999.

This council member is not "fostering the idea that there will not be development without PCDs;" however, the administration seems to be. Development will happen but it must be done carefully and with great thought. I question the wisdom of making decisions that appear to favor developers while ignoring residents. I question the wisdom of ignoring LORCO who has Federal money to construct sewers through N. Ridgeville. I question the wisdom of rushing major developments through when many important, unresolved issues need to be addressed. I question why we ignore the Master Plan and Thoroughfare Plan. I question the wisdom of rezoning more than 1,400 acres to PCDs with more to come. How wise is it to construct more than 4,500 new dwellings in a 10 to 15-year span without studying the affects on our schools, fire department, police force, roadways, and city services? Nearly two thousand registered voters apparently don't trust our council representation or the process and want a vote in how our city grows.

I have been on council for almost three years. During that time, I have observed that four or five members of council rarely, if ever, ask questions and consistently vote exactly the same while the minority regularly ask pertinent questions and vote independently. That should send up red flags to the residents.

Why are residents being told that sewers will be mandated in three years? Although requested, I have yet to see documentation stating septic systems are failing and sewers will be mandated. Why are residents being misled with the promise of free sewers when, in fact, residents would have to petition the city to run laterals and be assessed for their sewers? Since the trunk sewer will be constructed through developer land, benefitting developers, why will the city have to pay anything to construct those sewers?

At the September 5, 2000 council meeting when the time came to accept Planning Commission's recommendation to approve Meadow Lakes PCD, I asked some very important questions. No one could answer them. The City Planner's report was not even attached to Planning Commission's report. Lack of complete information is the norm rather than the exception when making important decisions. It is difficult for this council person to obtain detailed and accurate information. For anyone to say that the people are misinformed and not able to make as informed decisions as council members is absurd. When I am able to obtain information on issues and am asked for it by STAMP members or anyone else, I share this public record information with them. I even post information on my website. My job is to represent and help residents, and I enjoy doing that. It is my belief that the residents who attend Planning Commission meetings and either attend council meetings or view them on cable, and log onto my website have more knowledge of issues than some of my collegues.

Another disturbing fact is that council authorizes the mayor to negotiate and enter into developers agreements without ever seeing the contents of the contract. Developers donated over $6,000 to the mayor's campaign in '97 and '98. Does anyone reading this feel the mayor can negotiate and enter into agreements with an open and unbiased mind? Our former law director, Scott Serazin, stated that any contract not boilerplate; i.e. anything that grants credits, should come back to council for a vote. Our mayor is signing contracts giving thousands of dollars in credits to some developers, and our council never sees the contents until they are signed and then only if they request to see them.

These are some of the many issues that must be discussed honestly and openly if we are ever to become a desireable, first-class community where people want to live, work, and play. Our city is home to many professionals who have valuable input to give. No one who desires to be involved should be excluded. This is OUR city. We should ALL be involved in its planning. We need to slow down. The land will be here for a long time. Our tomorrows will be greatly impacted by the decisions we make today and will change the face of N. Ridgeville forever.

LETTER FROM GAIL MINNICK:

It appears some proponents of PCD's just don't get it. People, in general, think a few PCD's could be an asset to the city. However, not all PCD's are created equal. Kingston Place is not a question of whether or not a PCD is good for N. Ridgeville. It's a matter of upholding our charter, ordinances, Master Plan (which was over four years in the making), and the process of approving this PCD.

City Council members are sworn to faithfully, honestly, and impartially discharge the duties of their office and uphold N. Ridgeville's Charter and ordinances. The Kingston PCD violates three portions of the Master Plan--Mills Road extension (which can be put through entirely in N. Ridgeville without the consent of Avon or the gas company), density requirements (Low Density of 1.78 to 2.40 dwelling units per acre), and no commercial in that area. Also, this PCD does not conform to our ordinances and that information may be obtained on my website.

I live in a planned community development, which was built before the PCD designation existed. I love it and encourage more of them. Mr. Schmitt built two in N. Ridgeville with our present ordinances.

Ultimate Control? Along with residential, a developer may place 10 percent commercial (which is 20 acres for each 200-acre PCD) wherever he feels would best suit his project . 900 Acres would allow 90 acres of commercial (Great Northern Mall is approximately 86 acres). In Kingston's PCD, seven acres of commercial are proposed at Stoney Ridge and Mills Road. To put that into perspective, three standard lots in Mills Creek make up approximately one acre. Seven acres would be the equivalent of approximately 21 homes on standard-sized lots. The Master Plan does not place commercial at Stoney Ridge and Mills.

Open Space: Let's ask how much usable open space there will be. Kingston's open spaces include wetlands, detention basins and some parking areas.

Free Sewers: Sewers will not be free as touted by some. My understanding is the only people who will receive free sewers are those living along the main trunk--about seven. All others will be served by laterals and will have to pay for them if and when they are constructed. The proposed sewers are going though developers' land, benefitting developers.

Additional Revenue for French Creek: the mayor chose not to contract with LORCO, which would have helped provide sewers to existing residents. Instead, Avon Lake will receive $600,000 annual revenue to treat LORCO's sewage and their sewers will run through N. Ridgeville without the possibility of tap-ins.

Proper Procedure: According to the PCD ordinance, Planning Commission shall evaluate the application and reports issued by the City Engineer, City Planner and Law Director and issue its own report to City Council. I have received no such report. No public hearing was held on the preliminary plan, which is required by ordinance if this is to be consider an "automatic rezoning issue." According to our Charter, Planning Commission is to provide for the coordination of streets with other streets and with the official Municipal plan.

It is impossible to address every issue in this limited space. This is a multi-faceted project which affects residents in a variety of ways and that's why it so important that the issues be brought forward. I have listed just a few. If done correctly PCD's can be a wonderful asset to our city. I will continue to keep residents updated with the facts.

LETTER FROM JOSEPH ANTUSH:

I was one of a group that circulated a petition in N. Ridgeville. The people that the petition was presented to were asked if they were registered voters. if they said yes, we informed them that the petition was to put the issue of allowing PCC's to be built between Case and Stoney Ridge Roads on the ballot, where the citizens would decide the issue, and not city council that had already approved it. They were then given the petition to read and sign if they so desired. Of the 136 people I presented it to, 131 signed. The other circulators were equally well received.
the mayor and the council people who voted to approve the PCDs should have been appreciative of the information that a significant representative portion of the electorate indicated by the overwhelming willingness to sign the petitions that the citizens don't want PCDs built. In light of this information, they should change their stance so as to be responsive to the people. Instead, the mayor and those council people chose to make statements to the various press that the petition circulators gave false information to the people. They didn't say what that false information was. I believe we are due an apology or told what it was that was a lie. They also stated that the citizens didn't know what they were signing, that theyneeded educating and that the city government should make the decisions, not the residents.

Well, I have news for the city council and the mayor - you work for the citizens of N. Ridgeville, your job is to stay tuned to what the citizens want. They know what is best for them. Contrary to your opinion, they are well-educated and capable of making wise decisions. Let's hope the council and mayor will alsomake a wise decision and go the route of "If this is what the people want then that is the way it will be." There is no shame in admitting a wrong and then changing course. We all should respect that.

LETTER FROM DENNY JOHNSON:

I want to thank all those who carried petitions to challenge the PCD development in North Ridgeville. It’s hard work getting all those signatures in the foul weather we are burdened with at this time of the year and it is much appreciated.

Placing an issue like this on the ballot is a last resort, reserved for issues like this where we find our elected officials working against us.

I urge our elected officials to embrace the democratic process and refrain from comments like those recently made to the press by Mayor Hill and Council Representatives Jean Brown and Jim Johnson. Their claim that signers did not understand what they were signing shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of the people they serve. I know exactly what I signed and I'm sure the great majority of signers also knew.

They also mislead us when they claimed PCD development prevents “wall to wall housing”. The exact opposite is true, PCD allows for more houses per acre than standard single-family zoning and allows commercial development in an otherwise residential area.

Assuming the petitions will pass the certification process, I look forward to a full and honest debate of the issue.

FROM NANCY J. BUESCHER:

On April 3, the citizens of N. Ridgeville, represented by john C. Prajzner and attorney Gerald Phillips, presented Jim White, Clerk of Council, with 908 signatures on petitions, which will afford taxpayers the opportunity to vote for or against the Kingston Place re-zoning ordinance recently adopted by City Council.

I am appalled to realize that N. Ridgeville mayor, Deanna Hill, as reported in the April 4 edition of the Chronicle Telegram, stated that she thinks those who signed the petition were given false information and did not understand the ordinance. In the same article, first ward councilman, Jim Johnson, was quoted as saying, "most of the people who signed it don't know what they were signing." Those statements are personal insults to each and every circulator who volunteered their time in a concerted effort to aid the citizens of N. Ridgeville. They are personal insults to every registered voter who made the decision tosign the petition based on his or her oqn opinion on how they will be impacted by the ordinance.

The perceived arrogance behind those statements demonstrates apathy and disregard for the real concerns (which have been voiced at city meetings) of the people who reside in this city. In petitioning for a filing for a referendum vote, the residents have found a legal way to have their stifled voices heard while exercising their Constitutional rights in a democracy.

I believe the mayor and Mr. Johnson owe the citizens of N. Ridgeville a public apology.

FROM JUNE LANNING:

I circulated a petition in my neighborhood to put the PCD issue to a vote of N. Ridgeville voters. Contrary to Mayor Hill's comment in the April 5 Chronicle that "those who signed the petitions were given false information and did not understand the ordinance," I found the citizens well informed and eager to sign. It appears developers are interested in making as much money as they can and at the least cost to them. Theyleave behind (at least in N. Ridgeville) congested roads and eventually higher taxes for schools, roads, and city services. Other cities receive amenities from these developers in return for doing business in their cities. Maybe Mayor Hill should learn how to negotiate with these developers. She also should get out and talk to the residents and listen to their concerns. The same goes for our rubber-stamp council. Seems most are afraid tohave a different opinion than the mayor.

We also had people ask why something couldn't have been done about the new housing development on Opal and we had many negative comments on the huge, ugly building going up on Center Ridge and Emerald. Haven't we got enough empty buildings in N. Ridgeville. Here's a thought - maybe we should fill the empty ones before building more new ones.

FROM MARY ANN MILES:

I was one of the N. Ridgeville residents who collected signatures for the Kingston Place referendum. In no way did I give false or misleading information to any person. I resent the implication (from Mayor Hill) that an impropriety was done.

This petition was circulated to give the voters the opportunity to approve or disapprove the ordinance. If informing the public of their rights is wrong then I am guity.

Yes, Mayor Hill, it is time to educate the public. We must inform them of their rights! If anyone in the administration thinks otherwise, maybe it is the administration that needs the education.

LETTER FROM GAIL MINNICK:

I resent the remarks made recently by Mayor Hill that people collecting signatures on the referendum petition for the re-zoning of the Kingston PCD "were given false information." I challenge the mayor to verify that statement. Residents were calling to inquire where they could sign a petition! The favorable responses were overwhelming. What isn't being told by the administration is that council members who voted for the re-zoning ignored major thoroughfare plans, the Master Plan, ordinances (along with the City Planner's findings)--all existed before this PCD re-zoning was proposed. They aren't being told that if this PCD is built, the possibility of extending Mills Road to Case Road will be lost forever. By her statement is the mayor implying that the voters aren't capable of making intelligent decisions when told ALL the facts?

None of the council members who voted for the PCD re-zoning were heard saying, "with 908 signatures, maybe we should listen to the people and re-think this." Instead we hear fr

minnickgail@hotmail.com

Page Updated Fri Oct 1, 2004 11:10pm EDT