A referendum about rezoning the South Euclid portion of the former Oakwood Country Club will be on the ballot in South Euclid in November. This referendum campaign is the community’s effort to stop a big box value-oriented retail development from being built on Oakwood by First Interstate.
We thought you may be interested in seeing some of the campaign literature from the developer, so it is attached to the top of this post.
This is what we thought after we read it:
- No one cares if people from Cleveland Heights and South Euclid are working together to preserve local businesses and our quality of life.
- Of course we should work together, we’re neighbors!
- We all know that there can be a much better plan for Oakwood and our community than big box retail and drive thru restaurants.
- Trying to start this silly “border war” has no appeal to any of us. (Actually, it’s kind of embarrassing that they are trying to get us to fight with each other, isn’t it?)
We do agree with First Interstate on two important things, though:
- South Euclid residents are the only people who can vote NO on 96. Because it is going to appear on their ballots and theirs alone.
- South Euclid residents can’t be fooled. They will make the best decision for OUR community.
We need development, but the right kind in the right place.
Vote NO on 96!
The best way to help Oakwood is to talk with someone about this issue, so please reach out to your family, friends and neighbors in South Euclid.
Check out the facts on the development. Read our fiscal analysis, Bad Deal for South Euclid
For more information about the No on 96 campaign, visit their Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-on-96-Protect-South-Euclid/237136979669631
The real point to me is that, thanks to Citizens for Oakwood, the citizens of South Euclid get to vote on this, rather than having it jammed down their throats by elected officials who were determined to railroad this project to reality from the first moment they heard of it.
If the people of South Euclid really want this development, they’ll vote for it. I understand why the developer wanted to circumvent that process, but for the government to have tried is shameful.
“We do agree with First Interstate on two important things, though:
South Euclid residents are the only people who can vote NO on 96. Because it is going to appear on their ballots and theirs alone.
South Euclid residents can’t be fooled. They will make the best decision for OUR community.”
Does this mean that if Issue 96 passes you will be willing to admit that this is the best decision for our community and since we are neighbors you will enthusiastically endorse the future development of the CH portion of Oakwood?
Psst! Do you want to see how Citizens for Oakwood misrepresents facts and the Heights Observer knowingly still publishes them!
Regarding the Fiscal Analysis titled Bad Deal for South Euclid on the CFO website:
The employee per sq ft rate of the Dublin Study was not used in calculating the income tax figure. The figure that was used (1 employee per 818 sq ft in retail) is from a study done in 1995. If the Dublin study is as stated in the analysis “Like South Euclid, Dublin is a suburb of a large Ohio city, and the cost of living index in each city is nearly the same.[7] So we expect the costs for police, road and traffic systems maintenance, and administration in South Euclid to be comparable to those measured in Dublin.” Shouldn’t the figure of 1 employee per 380 sq ft of retail (this is on page 13 of the report that is cited on the CFO website) be used so we are comparing modern figures in similar cities? If so then that would mean that 855 jobs would be created. Fleshing this out more and using other yearly salary and income tax figures, these jobs would create an income tax revenue of $461,700 per year. That is more than double the CFO estimate. If I am wrong and read the report wrong, please let me know. In addition, I am trying to determine how CFO came up with the average salary of $27,000 per year for full time employees at Oakwood. Reference Item #4 of the analysis states that a blend of both retail and food service averages from a NRF wage estimate report were used. Then the rate was devalued somewhat because Oakwood will be mostly comprised of value-oriented businesses, meaning they pay lower wages. I guess my question is then – wouldn’t the NRF wage estimate report have included value-oriented establishments to make their calculations and final estimates? I did not see any footnotes on their site that value-oriented establishments were not included and that any basis for analysis by third parties should reflect this in said third-party calculation of wage estimate. So why is CFO making this adjustment? DECEPTION! And why does this blog continue to allow this misrepresentation of facts be posted? Quoting the great Bob Rosenbaum “Not a small misrepresentation in my mind – and not the kind that gets made by accident. “