A South Euclid official was cited in today’s Sun Press as saying the city needs to rezone the former Oakwood Club property because “in other developments in the area, when a developer is turned down for rezoning, it opens the door to a possible lawsuit against the city. That, he said, could cost taxpayers millions of dollars, as in the case of the Costco development in Mayfield Heights several years ago.”
South Euclid is not the first city to use this excuse, nor will it be the last. I’m certain I’ve heard the same thing from the mouths of Cleveland Heights officials from time to time, though I don’t recall the specific instances.
Nothing makes me angrier, as a citizen, than this feeble excuse for a government choosing not to do its job.
The statement implies that it doesn’t matter what anybody thinks about the proposal, because rolling over and letting it happen is a legal inevitability. It’s designed to absolve the city’s elected council from responsibility for a decision that, by all appearances, it has already decided to make.
Cities have master plans and zoning codes precisely because they are allowed – no, expected – to deliberate over issues like this one. They are expected to consider the best long-term interests of the community. They are expected to concern themselves with the desires of the people who live in adjacent neighborhoods. They are expected to reflect the values of their citizens. They are expected to stand up to outside influences that conflict with those interests, desires and values.
In America, anybody can sue anybody at any time for anything. That threat is no reason to abdicate your job.
If the would-be developer of Oakwood were to be denied a zoning change and then sue, it’s not a given that he would win. He bought residentially zoned land, and is asking for a dramatic change in its allowed use. While the land abuts a commercial area on its north end, it abuts residential neighborhoods on its other three sides. Its current zoning is supported by a long-term city planning document.
So if South Euclid officials really believed they could do better than the proposed development, it would be their job to deny the rezoning request.
On the other hand, if South Euclid’s council members really believe that accommodating this first and only proposal for the property is the best thing that they can do as representatives of their community, then they should say so and live with the consequences of that position.
But don’t hide behind the ridiculous argument that legal precedent forbids you from doing your job.
To their credit, a few of them have already said they favor this development. To their discredit, they were saying so back in February, before even the first public discussion of the matter had been held.
Nothing – even the voices of their own constituents – appears likely to change their minds.
Postscript: I’ve been asked why, as a Cleveland Heights resident, I think that I have any right to comment on the inner workings of South Euclid.
Two reasons:
- This will impact my community too, in ways that I’ve already documented.
- I’m simply preparing for the possibility that, in six months to a year, I’ll be able to reuse all of this copy, simply by deleting “South Euclid” wherever it appears and replacing it with “Cleveland Heights.”
Bob,
Contrary to your assumptions, The prospect of a lawsuit is a valid consideration for a city government. It’s part of their duty as stewards of the taxpayers’ money to avoid wasting that money on paying avoidable legal damages.
You offer quite a list of what city governments are expected to do. What you omit is perhaps the most important expectation, the one that sets South Euclid apart from London, Munich, Turin, Moscow, Nairobi, Brisbane, Beijing, Havana, or Sao Paulo – that they abide by constitutional limits on what government may, even with the noblest of intentions, do.
Contrary to your assertions, they are not expected to reflect the values of their citizens. For instance, the Baltimore City School District was reflecting the values of its citizens when it tried to make Madeline Murray O’Hare’s son participate in Bible readings. I’m sure you know your history well enough that, if you ponder for a few minutes, you can come up with numerous other examples of how a city are constitutionally restrained from reflecting, and thus effectively imposing, the values of most, but not all of its citizens.
You claim without basis that if the developer sues, it’s not a given that he’ll win. In contrast to your unfounded speculation, the city has lawyers on staff whose job is to provide research backed advice on that likelihood, and given the track record of cities facing such actions, it’s a safe bet they’re telling the city their chances are poor. Typically, unless the city can cite a material public health or safety objection, they lose. This is why many communities in Geauga County are resistant to extension of city water and sewer into their areas – they have large lot zoning (in reflection of the desires and values of their citizens) and the only way they can defend it in court is to have well and septic and have the township engineer testify that the water table won’t safely support any higher density, and support scientifically sound evidence to back that testimony.
You go on to describe characteristics of the Oakwood project that are remarkably similar to the Mayfield Hts/Costco case. That property was zoned residential when bought, bordered on at least two sides by residential neighborhoods, and adjacent to commercial property on one end. In addition, unlike Oakwood, it had no frontage on any major road, has exits directly into residential blocks and is a source of congested traffic on residential streets to this day. The city of Euclid lost a similar case that they defended largely on the basis of the proposed development’s nonconformity to their master plan.
You characterize the city’s consideration of this proposal as somehow suspect because of its solitary position. Why would any other developers offer alternative proposals when they don’t own the property? Would it be reasonable for me to go to CH Council and make a proposal for an alternative use of your home? Oakwood CC is free to sell their property to the buyer of their choosing, and that buyer, if the city stops him from realizing its value for subjective or vested interest reasons, can sue, and based on the history of such cases, is likely to prevail.
By the way, to those asking, you CH residency in no way impacts your right to comment on the inner workings of S. Euclid. Nothing obligates S.Euclid officials to pay any attention to what you say, but you have every right to express your opinion on this blog (as long as you don’t say anything that disagrees too sharply with the views of Heights Observer management. of course.)
paragraph 3 sentence 3 should read “examples of how a city IS constitutionally restrained”