Health & Fitness
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
Find out what's happening in Cleveland Heightswith free, real-time updates from Patch.
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.
Find out what's happening in Cleveland Heightswith free, real-time updates from Patch.
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?