.

Majority of South Euclid and Cleveland Heights residents at Public Hearing oppose Oakwood development

"Citizens for Oakwood" report on Public Hearing about Oakwood

The following information was provided by the Citizens for Oakwood.

Summary of South Euclid

Public Hearing (May 25, 2011) on

Rezoning of Oakwood land

The Citizens for Oakwood organization commissioned a court reporter to make a transcript of the public hearing which took place in Council Chambers of South Euclid City Hall on Wednesday, May 25, 2011. This hearing was regarding a proposed ordinance to rezone the Oakwood land from residential (R-75) to commercial (C-2), in order to permit the construction of a shopping center called Oakwood Commons.

The attached table lists the names and addresses of all community residents who spoke at the hearing. The column titled “For OC?” indicates whether the resident appeared to be in favor (“yes”) of building Oakwood Commons, against (“no”) building it, or undecided or ambiguous (“?”). The final column is a few-word synopsis of one or two main points made by the resident.

In condensing a 114-page transcript to a 2-page table much, of course, is lost. But it is hoped that much is also gained by providing a global overview of residents’ attitudes toward Oakwood Commons and their primary concerns.

Many residents did not explicitly indicate whether they were “for” or “against”. Every effort has been made to be fair in the “yes/no/?” assignments, but some subjectivity is inevitable. We encourage readers to refer to the original transcript which is available in the attached PDF. 

Here is a summary of the “yes/no/?” results:

City

Yes

(for Oakwood Commons)

No

(against Oakwood Commons)

?

(ambiguous)

Total

South Euclid

17 (31%)

27 (50%)

10 (19%)

54 (100%)

Cleveland Hts

1 (5%)

16 (80%)

3 (15%)

20 (100%)

Total

18 (24%)

43 (58%)

13 (18%)

74 (100%)

 

These results are similar to those reported online by Adam Horwitz in the May 26, 2011 Cleveland Heights Patch (see ).

 

Note that we have made no attempt to correct transcript errors in the spellings of names (of people and streets) in the attached summary table.
OC = Oakwood Commons

 

Name

City

For

OC?

Comments

Joan Albro

SE

no

Malls=slums

Alan Jones

SE

yes

We need jobs

Christina Elswick

SE

no

Green space important (submitted written document)

Janet Covitt

SE

no

Don’t need more retail

Linda Green

SE

yes

Taxes will go to Brush High, no plans to build big box

Ruth Kronick

SE

yes

Mitch Schneider is a man of integrity

Marko Fikaris

SE

yes

Mayor and Council have done their homework

Tula Dallas

SE

no

Senior apartments instead of retail

Bob Fry

SE

?

Will revenue from OC be positive?

Marty Gelfand

SE

yes

Walk to green OC

Steven Pressman

SE

no

Keep as recreational venue

Michael Kline

SE

no

Keep as environmental resource

Laura Luxenberg

SE

no

OC = detriment to quality of life

Bill Scheumann

SE

no

Don’t need more retail

Carol Sisson

SE

yes

Spend money in SE, want little bit of Legacy Village in SE

Barb Holtz

SE

yes

US Constitution says land can be developed, retail is better than residential

Fred Pearlman

SE

yes

Do something to make money off the land

Michael Hahn

SE

no

Make golf course & recreation area

Marie Rehmar

SE

?

Hope OC encourages pedestrians, but concerned about safety and cannibalizing other stores

James Moruna

SE

yes

SE needs tax revenues

Kathy Schaefer

SE

no

Big box will repel potential residents

Karen Mandel

SE

no

Too much retail vacancy, need green space

Anna DiJulius

SE

no

More damage than good

Joan Hampton

SE

no

Don’t want OC, but put in upscale stores if it is built

Frances Burrows

SE

?

Build office condominiums

Avi Goldman

SE

yes

We need jobs

Linda Pagon

SE

no

No big box

Rosie George

SE

?

Another retailer will not help, land already sold so it’s a moot point

Alan Brucato

SE

no

Don’t need more retail

Carter Welo

SE

yes

Welcome development

Jack Nemecek

SE

yes

Will be good for the city

Gary Bloom

SE

no

Don’t need more retail, missing an opportunity

Edith Hicks

SE

no

No big box

Rachelle Neher

SE

no

Use land for recreation

Nancy FixlerSpitler

SE

no

Don’t need more retail, need green space

Angela Shute

SE

no

Rethink retail, consider senior housing

Sylvia Billups

SE

yes

Not just big box

Diana Brown

SE

?

Did not comment

Robin Shell

SE

yes

Sidewalks, sustainability, taxes

Carol Tizzano

SE

no

Don’t need more retail, need green space

William McLaughlin

SE

?

Various suggestions

Rocco Dilillo

SE

yes

Houses or retail only choice, trust First Interstate

Jerome Liptow

SE

no

Let the people vote on rezoning

Marcella Soukup

SE

no

We can do better than big box

Howard Senkfor

SE

no

Development not good for SE

Dan Shraner

SE

no

Don’t trust developer

Jane Kowall

SE

?

Build high quality, not big box

Horace Rice

SE

?

Build trauma center

Kevin Kay

SE

no

Environmental and economic loss

Cathy Fromet

SE

?

Trust First Interstate but no thrilled with big box

Kathy Brunkala

SE

no

Senior housing, not big box

Carlean Alford

SE

?

Need retail, but not junk

Kevin Fromet

SE

yes

Need more tax revenue

Hank Drake (e-mail read by Councilman Romeo)

SE

yes

Needs of majority outweigh needs of the few

Annarich Ruben

CH

no

Senior housing, don’t rezone

Misty Siegel

CH

?

Described model city

Susan Miller

CH

no

Tax will go to CH-Uh schools, OC will be big box, regionalism

Adele Eisner

CH

no

Not enough specifics

Fran Mentch

CH

no

OC is short-sighted, develop Cedar Center

Rick Sones

CH

no

Compare OC to Hawthorne Village (submitted written document)

Ann Gecowets

CH

no

Jobs stolen from elsewhere, environmental harm

David Furry

CH

no

Put it up to a vote

Sue Janssen

CH

no

Don’t need more retail, need green space

Jan Snellman

CH

no

Need green space, drainage, regionalism

Olivia Geaghan

CH

yes

Ikea or Trader Joe’s as anchor, plus local restaurants

Steve Cagan

CH

no

Need more specifics

?

CH

?

More specifics would be wonderful

Carla Rautenberg

CH

no

Don’t need more retail, keep green space

Dr Robert Haas

CH

no

Development is irreversible

Marcie Denton

CH

no

Big box bad for community, regionalism

Mike Gaynier

CH

no

OC is not best way to develop that land

Richard Wong

CH

?

Buffer between OC and houses needs to be larger (submitted written document)

Rickey Adorjan

CH

no

Don’t destroy nature to make money

Jennifer Hillman

CH

no

Central Park or a mall?

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Brian June 25, 2011 at 05:16 PM
These numbers are very small and most likely represent the parties who live in the area and may have a bias one way or the other. They probably do not represent the community at large. Any public space is better than an exclusive country club with barbed wire surrounding it. My two cents.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something