DON'T FEED THE DEER and THE CITY'S NEW WOODLAND PRESERVE

WESTERN ADVENTURES

I just got back from a trip out west.

My elderly (but still quite spry) dad wanted to visit his 97 year old brother in Tucson.

It didn’t take much convincing to get me to say yes---not after the winter we’ve had.

We met up in Phoenix.

My dad, a WWII navigator, got out his maps and plotted our route for the week.He’s not a highway guy---especially when he’s got a chauffeur and there are so many scenic routes to choose from.

I have to admit I like traveling off the beaten path too.
You never know what surprising things you’ll stumble across.

For instance….

Just outside of Miami Arizona we came across a steep, multi-story high grass-covered earthen dam that was formed by the rocky discharge from a local mountaintop copper mining operation.

Here’s what caught my eye:

Can’t make it out?

Here’s a close-up view.

Yep, someone had driven cattle up and fenced them in for grazing---at quite an angle no less---in a small pen near the top of the dam.

Hope the cattle enjoyed the view…!

NEW WOODLAND PRESERVE: LOOKS LIKE A GO!
I have received confirmation from several different sources that the Ohio Public Works Commission has approved a grant to buy (and preserve) 12 acres of land off  Bishop Road, south of Hawthorne Drive, adjacent to city-owned parkland.

The property contains several significant wetlands and streams that hold, cleanse and carry storm water runoff from quite a few communities to our south.
The streams are part of the Euclid Creek water system, which empties into Lake Erie…where we get our drinking water from.

Papers have yet to be signed, and final details are still pending, but it looks like there will be a new woodland preserve established in Highland Heights by summer’s end.

The property will be deeded to the non-profit West Creek Conservancy group.
Importantly, it will be subject to a conservation easement, guaranteeing that the woodlands will remain undeveloped and in their natural state for all time.

One caveat of concern.
I understand that there may be some sort of grant-matching requirement that has to be met in order for the deal to close.

I’ve asked before and I’ll ask it again:

Will Council---which so quickly, and without any meaningful public discussion, forked over $800,000 of taxpayer money to assist in a commercial redevelopment project---be willing to invest a much smaller sum to secure a new woodland preserve, for Highland Heights residents to enjoy for generations to come?

I can only hope that the answer to that question will be a resounding YES!

DON’T FEED THE DEER---OR ELSE

In March 2013, after receiving repeated complaints from Aberdeen neighborhood residents, Council began discussing the idea of enacting an ordinance that would ban the feeding of deer and other “nuisance” animals in the city.

The topic was discussed by Council’s Safety Service Committee several times in May and June 2013.
Thereafter the Committee presented a proposed feeding ban ordinance to Council.
Residents spoke out for and against the proposed ban at the July 23^rd Council meeting.
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2013/07-23-13_council_minutes.htm

It proved to be a hot button issue

So hot that, with Council elections looming, Council voted to table the discussion rather than take action on the proposed ordinance.

The matter lay dormant until earlier this month.

I can’t say I blame Council for being cautious.
Deer feeding is, apparently, a hot button issue everywhere.

Take, for example, this May 7^th Associated Press story, which reported:

A suburban Minneapolis man who had a long-running dispute with two
neighbors over feeding deer opened fire on the couple and killed one of them, hours after his son was arrested on suspicion of threatening to burn down their house, according to criminal charges filed Wednesday….
http://nyti.ms/1kZDq4N

Council removed the “no deer feeding” ordinance from the table last Tuesday.

Quite a few residents spoke during the public portion section of the Council meeting.

As before, the discussion was quite lively.

Sean Milroy, who unsuccessfully ran for a Council-at-large seat last November, suggested that rather than banning feeding, the city should allow residents with large lots to engage in bow hunting of deer on their property.

Another resident was less than enthusiastic about Milroy’s proposal:

“I am a firearms owner. I don’t know if it’s the best idea to have residents walk outdoors and start shooting at deer….
Whether it’s right that people are feeding deer, I don’t know…
Is it correct to make a sweeping law because of an obvious dispute between neighbors?  For the police department it will be a burden to enforce…”

Edie Nelson was distressed that the ordinance would prevent her from feeding squirrels:

"I feed birds and squirrels…It’s my hobby.
To my knowledge I have not created a nuisance.
I don’t want you to tell me who I can feed in my backyard..
If it (the feeding ordinance) is passed, all residents will be punished.
It’s not necessary, at least as currently written.”

In my mind, the most compelling argument was one offered by Bari Pinto, who is directly impacted by her Aberdeen neighbor’s deer feeding, as it regularly attracts huge collections of deer in Pinto's backyard.

Instead of fighting over whether feeding deer constituted a “property right” as her deer-feeding neighbor previously claimed, Pinto focused on a different concept: neighborliness.

“The reason I’m sad is that good neighbors now need to be ordinanced.”

 After giving several dictionary definitions of neighborliness, Pinto summed the concept up:

“Do unto others as you would have done unto you. 
If I was told that something I was doing disrupted my neighbors, I would stop out of courtesy and respect…
I would stop feeding deer out of concern and courtesy for my neighbors.
 If I knew that a neighbor had chased a deer with his lawn mower because the deer was hissing at him I would stop…

Some neighbors think that it’s only their rights and desires that matter.

It’s unfortunate that we need this ordinance…

I choose not to escalate hostility because I’m a good neighbor.”

Council passed a slightly amended version of the deer feeding ordinance, Ordinance 15-2013, at the May 13^th Council meeting.

The vote wasn’t unanimous.
Councilman Leo Lombardo voted no, explaining that he did not believe it was a serious enough city-wide issue to warrant legal intervention.
The amended version of Ordinance 15-2013 allows bird feeding and removed references to domestic pets...which means that:

Pets can legally dine al fresco this summer

 DEER FEEDING ORDINANCE:

A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSENSUS

Amy Francis, the Aberdeen resident whose deer-feeding apparently ignited the controversy, also addressed Council.
She identified herself as:

“..the evil deer feeder that everyone is talking to”

Francis said she:

“…was brought into this ugly, nasty dispute.
On the one hand you have the squeaky wheels.
On the other hand you have people who enjoy feeding the animals. We have a petition signed by over 100 people…
You (Council) are acting as judge and jury. It’s not your responsibility to do that…
You allow people to feed birds. Guess who likes bird food? Deer do. “

Francis then went on to make an interesting suggestion:

“The statute (proposed deer feeding ordinance) will only create more problems.
There are two more options.
You can allow your constituents to speak about this. Allow them to vote.
Or you can rewrite this.
Not create a blanket law taking away property rights.
Instead adopt an addendum to the existing nuisance law so you can deal with it on a case by case basis.”

The last suggestion was the road map to consensus.

It’s too bad that the Council majority who passed the deer feeding ordinance chose not to take that route.

It would have been a much more graceful political solution.

And, importantly, I believe it would have garnered every Council member's unanimous support.

Let's face it.
The real issue here----the one that the city definitely has both an interest in and the power to address---is nuisance.
The reality is:

The feeding of wildlife can---but does not always---create a nuisance

 And let's face it.Taking a nuisance approach wouldn’t have gotten Amy Francis off the hook.
 Far from it.

It’s pretty clear that her deer feeding has created a nuisance in her tightly developed neighborhood.

Focusing on nuisance, rather than adopting an outright feeding ban, would leave residents whose activities don’t cause an actual nuisance…residents like Edie Nelson and her squirrels---unmolested and in peace.

It was an approach advocated by Councilman Ed Hargate who, nevertheless, voted for the deer feeding ban.

It would have addressed the concerns of Councilman Leo Lombardo, who wasn't convinced that the Aberdeen deer feeding dispute represented a widespread city problem that needed to be addressed via a broadly drafted animal feeding ban.
It also would have addressed governmental overreaching, an issue of concern expressed by many of the residents in attendance at last week's Council meeting.

The nuisance animal feeding ordinance.
A missed opportunity for consensus.

What a shame.

The animal feeding ordinance passed by Council on Tuesday

AWOL?

AWOL?

I haven’t lost interest in local doings….
I’ve just been a bit busy lately.

Instead of watching:

 I was out of town playing with:

And I’m soon off to here:

Such is life when kids have flown the nest and scattered to distant places.

IS “MODERN” THE WAY TO GO?

The local issue stirring up the most controversy is Council’s proposed ban on electronic signs---you know, those huge, multi-color, tv-type advertising screens frequently seen along local highways.

It all started last December when a business owner asked the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) to grant him a “variance” so he could put an electronic sign in front of his Bishop Road self-storage facility.
(Should I point out that the facility already has a huge, nonconforming (but previously approved) monument sign in front of it?)

The variance request sparked a discussion on Council:

Were electronic signs even allowed under our zoning….. and, if not, should they be?

The bugaboo in the discussion, of course, was the two garish-red electronic signs sitting in front of the Community Park and the Municipal Complex.

It seemed a bit disingenuous to hear Council members question the desirability of electronic signs when the city installed its own electronic signs along two major city thoroughfares several years ago.

Never fear. 

Law Director Tim Paluf pronounced that whatever the restrictions on everyone else, the city could do whatever it wanted.

He pointed to Ordinance 1145.03(a)(1), which states:

The (sign) regulations…shall not apply to…Identification, informational or directional signs or notices erected or required by public authority.

Take that, business owner!

Council President Cathy Murphy clearly expressed her feelings about electronic signs at a March 25^th Legislative & Finance Committee meeting:

“I don’t support allowing electronic signs. I don’t think we should have them. I liken our city more to Mayfield Village (which bans electronic signs) than Mayfield Heights (which allows them). We don’t have business strips.  Our businesses are near sensitive residential areas. They (electronic signs) would destroy residential character….Residents really don’t want them…and I can make an argument about safety. They are a distraction.”

Mayor Scott Coleman commented at an April 11^th Committee of the Whole meeting:

“We are basically a residential community. The general feeling (of residents that the mayor talks to) was they were either indifferent or against them (electronic signs). I did not hear anyone say that they are in favor of them or that there was overwhelming need for the signs. I don’t think we have any particular need for them. If we prohibit them, we protect our city.”

Councilwoman Ann D’Amico spoke protectively about her ward:

“When I look at the landscape of Ward 4 I can’t imagine where there is a place that an electronic sign would not impact residents. In my ward it’s not something that would be good at all.”

Not every Council member, however, was dead set against adopting rules to regulate the use and placement of electronic signs in the city.

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo (a P&Z member) looked at things a bit more globally:

“Our city is 80% residential and 20% business. A majority of our income is from businesses that allow us to maintain our residential neighborhoods. …
It’s easy to make rules when you can exempt yourself…
We can’t claim a safety issue when our own (city electronic) signs are flashing every 3 seconds. If that’s a safety issue for businesses then the city should follow that too….

I remember when I started on P&Z, we only allowed 2 car garages. Things change over time, changes that the zoning code did not anticipate when the zoning code was written.  I don’t know what we have to fear….

I don’t have a problem looking to see if we could come up with something (regulations) that makes sense.”

Councilman Chuck Brunello, attempted to sit on the fence but seemed to take a pro-business, “best case” scenario stance:

“I am not overly excited about them (electronic signs), but if we allowed them not every company would jump on board. They are expensive. Esthetically they look better than what’s already existing. …

Two business owners I talked to asked, “When are we going to start doing more for them?”
They are trying to conduct business to stay afloat. They want to advertise new products….

Even if they (electronic signs) are allowed, they aren’t going to pop up everywhere I don’t think because they are too expensive. Where we would have them would not be everywhere.
I’m not crazy to do it, but there are some pockets where we could think about it. We (the city) aren’t just residential areas.”

It was reported to me that an attorney came to the April 22^nd Council meeting, hoping to foster a discussion with Council about electronic signs and the self-storage business owner’s variance request.

That attorney didn’t know what residents know:

Even though members of the public are allowed and invited to speak at Council meetings, Council members refuse to dialogue with residents in that forum.

The public can speak but, except in the rarest of rare occasions, the only response they will get from Council members in return is..... silence.

On April 11^th Council President Cathy Murphy asked Law Director Tim Paluf to prepare legislation prohibiting electronic signs in the city.
Her final take on the issue:

“A lot of cities let them in and then tried to stop them.  I’m not sure they are as popular as people think they are or that they are appropriate for every city.  We can always revisit it when a compelling need is made.”

CITY WINS EMINENT DOMAIN CASE—SO FAR

CITY WINS EMINENT DOMAIN CASE—SO FAR

In my January 31^st blog I described a St. Charles Place resident’s frustration with the city due to its inaction with regard to the Glen Eden water detention basin and pump station.
The pump station---which became obsolete shortly after it was built---was supposed to have been removed years ago.
The city never followed through to make sure that happened.
Meanwhile property taxes were (inexplicably) assessed---but not paid---on the storm water facilities.
The city could have gotten involved when the pump station and basin appeared on the delinquent tax sale list---but it didn't.
The pump house and detention basin fetched $400 at the tax sale a couple of years ago.
The buyer promptly put them on the market for $5,000, hilariously advertising them as :
"1.2 acres wooded with ravine. Stable house on land."

That got the city's (brief) attention.

Council discussed acquiring the property, for cheap, then---but since everyone wasn’t on board Council didn’t take any action.
And Mayor Scott Coleman didn't push them to do so.

Awhile later the pump house and basin changed hands again.
The new owners threatened to fill in the detention basin and rented out the pump house for commercial use…the unsightly result of which is very visible from Highland Road.
The city finally bit the bullet and decided to acquire the storm water facilities using eminent domain.

The wheels of justice have turned slowly…very slowly… since then.

Law Director Tim Paluf announced at the March 25^th Council meeting that the suit's presiding magistrate finally issued a preliminary ruling.

The magistrate declared that the city can use its eminent powers to get title to the pump station and detention basin.

No duh. We had to wait 18 months for that?

Paluf explained that the battle is far from over.
The current owners can appeal the magistrate’s ruling, and there will be more litigation to determine how much the city---i.e. Highland Heights residents---have to pay.

  If the current owners have their way, it will be a heck of alot more than $400. 

The St. Charles resident’s frustration is understandable.

This all could have been avoided---the delays, the lawsuit, and the hefty legal fees---if city leaders had taken action much earlier.

But they didn’t….

So residents will continue to wait, and Paluf will continue to rack up legal fees, until the situation is resolved.

VOTE FOR ISSUE ONE

The May primary ballot contains two money issues.
Issue 7 asks voters to extend Cuyahoga County’s sports-related “sin tax” on tobacco and alcohol.

The other issue (Issue 1) asks voters to extend a state bond program, the proceeds of which are used to help pay for local infrastructure projects  (like road reconstruction).

Estate taxes were an important source of revenue for Ohio towns and cities.
Highland Heights used them to pay for capital improvement projects.

The Ohio legislature's decision to repeal estate taxes has changed all that…and made the Issue 1 program more important than ever.
If you aren't sure how to vote on Issue 1, think of it this way:

A yes vote is a vote for Highland Heights and other Ohio local communities.

PARK  & REC 5 YEAR PLAN:
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

A few years ago Recreation Director Dave Ianiro presented Council with the Park & Recreation Committee’s (P&R) five year plan for the Community Park.

It wasn’t a prioritized list.

In fact it seemed to be structured so P&R could avoid making any hard choices about its wish list items.

Council members asked Ianiro for a prioritized list….and never got it.

History has just repeated itself.

Mayor Scott Coleman mentioned during recent budget discussions that he had P&R’s newest 5 year plan in hand---a surprising comment given that Council had been waiting since last fall to see the plan...and was still waiting to get copies of it at budget time.
And just what did P&R's Five Year Plan look like?

Same old, same old.

It's a long list of wish list items prioritized within groupings but not prioritized overall.
You might ask:

What does P&R think is the absolute, most urgent and highest priority item to get done?

They apparently don’t have just one.... they have lots and lots of them.
P&R’s latest 5 year plans lists all of the below as “High Priority” items for 2014:

    Item                                        Estimated Cost      

Sidewalk Extension                           $27,000                   
Lighting 2 BB fields                         $170,000                    

Backlighting 2 BB fields                          ?                           

1 BB Diamond Renovation                 $95,000                       

Repair BB warmup areas                      $4,000                       

Pool Attractions             2 B Determined(TBD)      
Pool Concession area                             TBD                       

Motor for pool slide                              $6,000                     

Motor for pool mushroom                     $3,000                     

Tractor                                                 $36,000                      

Walking paths                                      $40,000                    

Poison Ivy                                              TBD                    

General Park Maintenance                     TBD                    

BB & Property line fencing              $83,018                     

You might wonder what P&R's“Low Priority” items are.
They include things like:  “Parking lot resurfacing and sealing,” and “Pool lighting".

The“High Priority” items above---at least the ones P&R has provided estimates for----total $464,018.

Which raises the question:?

Where will P&R get the money to pay for everything it deems “High Priority” in 2014?

That’s not clear.

The 2014 budget shows P&R with $591,300 in revenue and $723,453 in expenditures---a deficit of $228,093.

Whoops, there goes P&R deficit spending again.

You might think that the deficit comes from paying for all of the “High Priority” projects on P&R's Five Year Plan----right?

Wrong.
The P&R budget includes these two items: $15,000 in “equipment capital outlay and $0 in “pool capital outlay (new).”

That’s it.

Am I missing something here….or…

 Is there (once again) a major disconnect between P&R and financial reality?