The South Euclid Planning Commission approved a plan for a Big Box store to be built 50 feet from the Oakwood property line.
We took the attached pictures 5/1/11, at the Severance Walmart, of Binxie and her owner standing at a 50 ft marker.
We carefully measured 50 ft from the back of the Big Box store and positioned Binxie and her owner on the 50 ft line.
That is how close the Big Box store will be built to the property lines of the homes along Oakwood.
The back of the building will have loading docks and the garbage dumpster area.
In these photos you only see the garbage dumpster area. Please note the door left ajar to the dumpster area, litter in the area around it and the rat poison container in one corner.
The homes will be so close to the proposed Big Box that they will see nothing but a solid concrete wall.
To read the Mitigation Analysis and the Developer’s Agreement, go to this link.
Page 3 of the Developer’s Agreement states that the sidewalks will be 5 ft wide, and includes detailed dimensions of the parking spaces.
Page 5 of the Developer’s Agreement stipulates that drive-through stacking spaces will be 20 ft long and a minimum of 9 feet wide.
But they did not include in the Developer’s Agreement an adequate buffer of at least 150ft from the houses that will see the back of the Big Box.
DON’T THE PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITY COUNT MORE THAN PARKING SPACES, SIDEWALKS, AND DRIVE-THROUGH STACKING SPACES?
OPPOSE THE REZONING OF OAKWOOD.
ATTEND THE SOUTH EUCLID CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 25TH AT 6PM in South Euclid City Hall.
Please visit citizensforoakwood.org and donate today. We need $1281.24 to pay for a postcard mailing to South Euclid to inform residents of the Public Hearing.
THANK YOU!
prop·a·gan·da
[prop-uh-gan-duh] –noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
This recent post on the Heights Observer blog shows numerous photos of a single person and a dog standing behind the Wal-Mart at Severance Town Center. In both words and photos, the blog post states definitively that this is what residents bordering the proposed Oakwood Commons project will see out their back doors.
That blog post is deliberately misleading.
Here are the facts about the photos taken at Severance Town Center and posted on the Heights Observer blog:
A. All of the photos were taken from the Regal Cinemas parking lot where, due to the natural slope of the land and the original Severance Mall design, the building is two stories and nearly 60-feet high !!
B. The retail buildings to be constructed at Oakwood Commons will not exceed 30 feet.
C. Additionally, the way the photos were taken and the accompanying – and very misleading – narrative presumes the back of someone’s house is right on the 50-foot line from the building. The development requirements adopted by the S. Euclid Planning Commission provide for a 50 foot BUFFER. That means from the residential property line (NOT the rear of someone’s house) to the edge of the Oakwood circulation driveway there will be at least 50 feet of green space with a landscaped buffer area.
D. In addition, there are driveways for circulation behind the buildings that are approximately 30 feet wide. So, the closest any portion of a building can be to the residential property line (not the house) is 80 feet. Also, the buildings are not flat across the back. The truck docks are often 30 feet wide, meaning the majority of the rear of a building is more than 100 feet from any adjacent residential property line.
E. The photos on this blog take none of that into consideration.
Here are the facts about that portion of the Oakwood Commons project currently under consideration by the S. Euclid City Council:
A. 0 (not a typo; that number is zero) houses in S. Euclid will have the rear of a large retail building in their backyard.
B. 7 houses in S. Euclid will have the side of a large retail building in their backyard, with a 50-foot buffer from the property line comprised of existing vegetation, a retaining wall and an additional 30-foot driveway.
C. 19 houses in S. Euclid will have a combination of parking lot and “interior green space” in their backyard, with a 50-foot buffer from the property line comprised of existing vegetation, a retaining wall and an additional 30-foot driveway.
D. 45 houses in S. Euclid will have a public park in their backyard.
E. 2 (not a typo; that number is two) houses in Cleveland Heights will have the rear of a large retail building in their side yard. However, those Cleveland Heights houses will not see the full 30-foot high building because the floor of that commercial building will be at least 10’ lower than the ground the house is built-upon.
F. 30 houses in Cleveland Heights will have a public park in their backyard – not a building, nor a driveway.
G. The two buildings both feature docks with 15-foot tall retaining walls to shield delivery trucks and dumpsters from the two homes mentioned in #E above.
As we’ve said before, residents who oppose this project are entitled to their own opinions. But they’re not entitled to their own version of the facts.
We urge the residents of S. Euclid and Cleveland Heights to ask proponents of both sides questions, analyze the data and come to conclusions based on fact, not on falsehoods and inflammatory propaganda.
Sincerely,
Susan Windle, Marketing Coordinator
First Interstate Properties
50 ft. is 50 ft. The developer’s agreement posted on City of South Euclid website only mandates a 50 ft. buffer between the development and the property line.
We are willing to take a photo of Binxie 50 ft. away from any place of your choosing. 50 ft is 50 ft.
Our homes are built on small lots; our houses are built close our back property line. The back of my house is 50 ft. from my back property line.
A loading dock, driveway or anything built within 50 ft of a property line is very close. Loading docks are used overnight and bring noise, air and light pollution to the homes closest to them.
We appreciate the careful tally of the numbers of homes affected. We hope that the final development agreement will include an offer to buy, at fair market value, any of the homes bordering the development.
We oppose the rezoning of Oakwood.
Our community is being used as a means to an end for a few people who do not live here or care about our community as a place to live.
We do not oppose development. We want the right kind in the right place. The developer and his global investment firm have skills and resources we need and want to help move our community forward. We need and want their help.
But to rip up the largest remaining greenspace in the inner ring suburbs to put in retail we do not need seems unreasonable and destructive.
I remember when the Severance estate was just a big empty, tree filled, beautiful parklike lot… in Cleveland Heights. (This was wayyy before I ever heard of First Interstate) Cleveland Heights did the right thing when they made it into a shopping area to improve their tax base and to move forward, but how much business did the Home Depot take away from the half dozen hardware stores in the area or did WalMart take away from other retailers when Severance opened? I don’t see any parks or public areas for recreation at Severance? Why aren’t Height residents asking for a “no growth” future at Severance? Instead they complain about another city.
Although I would personally prefer to live next to public park (maintained by anybody I don’t have to pay), the reality is that isn’t going to happen. Once this development is done, it’s going to be a lot easier for residents of both communities to walk to this new shopping area as it’s closer to the street, has new amenities and will help to support the revenue issues in South Euclid.
Georgine Welo, like millions of other community leaders, developers and private homeowners were hurt badly by market forces they do not control. It is terrible that even one homeowner will see his property devalued, but in every local community development creates opportunity and risks that are necessary.
Speaking strictly as a community member, I find First Interstate’s response to Fran’s post to be unseemly, sarcastic and unbecoming.
I fully agree that Fran’s post is awkward and potentially misleading, but it makes a valid point: a 50-foot buffer is extremely small for a development of this scale, and for South Euclid’s officials to decline to ask for more is baffling. Surely a developer with the self-described status and track record of First Interstate has dealt with such demands before. South Euclid’s government has gone beyond “wanting” this development; it has sold out its own residents.
But the insensitivity of the developer to respond in this manner is, frankly, shocking. If you have facts to set straight, then do so. But this response is dripping with condescension. And it shows complete disregard for ordinary, law-abiding home owners, such as the “2 (not a typo, that number is two)” families who WILL have a big box store abutting their backyard, and who don’t have the benefit of having a voice in the government.
First Interstate holds all the cards, but is right now acting as unprofessionally as I have ever witnessed in my 25 years observing and covering situations like this.
As a resident of South Euclid, I have recently been following the progress on the development of the former Oakwood Country Club. It appears that there is a small faction of residents from Cleveland Heights and University Heights that perceive the proposed development as detrimental to the “Future of the Heights”.
Now, like those who seem to be the most vocally opposed (a librarian and a marketing/journalist professional) I am no expert in the development of land. So I feel it best to leave to leave the decision making to those that are the experts. However, I do feel that in order to have an understanding of a situation that may affect me in one way or another, I should be researching all points of view on such situation.
So I do find it troubling when someone who is affiliated with a group that’s sole purpose is to preserve the sanctity of their neighborhood (the librarian) succumbs to using rumors and propaganda to discredit the posposed development of the Oakwood Property. How can I make an informed decision if you cannot decipher the true facts and provide them to me in a way that helps me make an educated decision on the proposed development. I men do we know that there is going to be a Wal Mart there for sure? Has Wal Mart signed a lease, purchased building supplies, hired architechts? If not then why are pictures of a Wal Mart being submitted? And why is the supposed journalist with over 25 years of experience so quick to defend the librarian and admonish the developer. When I read the letter from the developer, I am not trying to read between the lines or characterize the tone in which it was written. Quite frankly I believe the developers response was clear, concise, specific, detailed – does that equal unbecoming and sarcastic?
Our journalist expert seems to think so, but after 25 years of experience he still has issues with editors changing his articles so that they misrepresent his ideas? So if our journalist is having a hard time spreading his words properly in a field that he is supposedly an expert – I would think 25 years of experience should qualify him for that – then how can he be trusted to give me reliable information regarding the development of real estate – of which he has no previous expeience in which he has shared with us.
We were told by people who work at Walmart that a new Walmart was planned at Oakwood.
We asked the developer directly, by email if this was true. He said he cannot tell us who is signed or interested as that is private information. If he was not considering Walmart, why wouldn’t he have said so? If Walmart is not off the table, it is on the table.
He has worked with Walmart many times before and closing the Severance store and opening a new one is in keeping with Walmart’s business plan, history and their interest in opening Supercenters that are one-half grocery store.
Much retail has moved online. We still have to buy groceries from bricks and mortar stores–thus the reason for Walmart to move to that market. This will be destructive to our local grocery stores.
The developer has been very clear throughout this process that BIG BOX of some kind is going to go into Oakwood.
By the way, the discussion is about Oakwood, not about me. But, I am very well qualified to speak about this issue, and can list my credentials to anyone interested. We have not engaged in personal attacks and they are not productive.
We must not be distracted from the important issue at hand-Oakwood and how its development will impact the entire community, now and for generations to come.
I agree that the important issue is Oakwood and how it will affect the community. I just tend to see things a bit differently. For instance, you say we don’t need any more retail in this area. But you also state that most retail has moved online (save groceries). So maybe, new retail opportuniteis might shift that trend in this community for the better? And as far as local grocery stores are concerned, I am not familiar with very many locally owned companies still in existence. I mean there is Giant Eagle and Marc’s, but do they really qualify as locally owned? Perhaps if, as you say, a Wal Mart with 1/2 grocery store does end up at the Oakwood site, the local grocers will have to lower their prices to compete. I see that as a benefit to the community. What if the members of the community experienced a 5% decrease in their annual grocery bill because of this development. Does that not have a positive impact on the community?
I have only lived in South Euclid for the last year so I know little of Oakwood until now. My understanding is that it was an exsclusive private country club for the past century. So technically, only a select few have had the privelage of enjoying that greenspace for the last 100 years. I do not see how something that only these select few have had the right to enjoy now adversely affects the community if only a fraction of the greenspace is left intact. I have heard of 3 possible uses for the land (granted these all come from reading the newspaper so there may be more that I am unaware of).
1. Retail with Housing and Greenspace (First Interstate plan)
2. Striclty Housing – of which if I am correct this is what the land is currently zoned for.
3. Public greenspace.
I would hope that recent past experience would enlighten us to the fact that there are numerous housing developments that are unfinished and underpopulated because of the current economic times. I certainly would not want 100 acres of unfinished streets, deserted lots, and empty homes in my community. I have to believe that would certainly affect mine and my neighbor and my neighbor’s neighbor property values. Plus I just wouldn’t see that a new housing development would allow me to enjoy the land in any way. There are not too many times that I walk around in someone else’s neighborhood.
The entire site being public greenspace would be great but I would be leary as to the upkeep of the property. You see I had a water leak on my street last September. The water company came out and dug up the asphalt and fixed the leak. They then covered the hole with gravel, put down an orange barrell and left. It is now May and the orange barrell is there and all of the gravel is on my tree lawn after the snow plows came through this winter. Neither the city streets department nor the water company seem to think it is their problem. They feel it is my responsiblity. Apparently they don’t even want their orange barrell back. So if they cannot finish the project of of 6′ x 6′ piece of asphalt on a city street, how are they going to manage over 100 acres of public land?
Looks to me like the First Interstate plan covers all of the bases. New housing, new retail opportunities to hopefully put a dent in those pesky online retailers, and greenspace for the whole community to enjoy.
I am sorry if you feel I was launching a personal attack and I am sure that your credentials warrant your involvement. I do however take issue with your shaping the facts to suit your needs.
I checked First Interstate’s website to see how many of their properties have Wal Mart as a tenant and the answer is two. That is two out of eight from the info that I could gather online. That is a far cry from numerous. They have also a Kohl’s at two of their properties but you have yet to mention that name. And they have Dick’s Sporting goods and Applebees and Chipotle and BJ’s Wholesale at their properties, yet none of these retailers are mentioned in any of your arguments. To me it seems you have an issue with Wal-Mart specifically. Again, I can only go on what your blogs and newspaper articles have stressed consistently. Those are the facs you are giving me.
In conclusion I feel that there are several other factors that are of more concern to the future of our community.
1 – Rising fuel prices
2 – Rising commodity prices due to rising fuel prices
3 – Increased number of government studies to determine the affect of rising fuel prices.
4 – Corrupt local governments.
5 – Home forclosures and the affect they have on the community.
6 – Home forclosures and the affect they have on the rising fees for standard services at financial institutions
7 – Failing school systems
8 – Lack of funding for increased/improved safety services
9 – Processed Foods, Trans Fats and Obesity
Every single item I listed above affects your community more than whether or not a big box retailer is located 50 or 80 feet from your property line.
I just want real facts so I can make an informed decision. If you are going to be a proponent or an opponent then you have to provide those who are neutral with the truth. The real numbers. Not phrases to descibe staitsitics, but real statistics.
Fran: You heard about this from Walmart employees? Which ones? Who did they hear it from? Can’t name your sources?
Management doesn’t share plans with employees at a company like Walmart. So, these employees wouldn’t have heard it from management – not from their immediate supervisors, not from the home office. Unless you were speaking with upper management in Little Rock, you weren’t speaking with someone who was in a position to know.
These “employees” you speak of heard these rumors from you, Fran. Either directly or indirectly. That’s the way the rumor mill works – it fans down from someone in your group, then you chat with them and they say they “heard” about Walmart opening at Oakwood.
I can understand why Schneider is “sarcastic and unbecoming” as Bob says. Who in their right minds would want to do business here?
Please reread my post and the detailed information about the email we sent to Mr. Schneider directly, and the response he sent.
His response is also posted online at our Facebook page.
I agree it is important to have reliable, credible sources, and we have those.
Your test of accuracy, that we would have to speak to upper management at Walmart is a good one. I will email them and ask them directly.
Your statement that we started this rumor is not true. We have sources; it was gutsy of them to talk with us.
We need people who are not afraid to speak the truth, even about their place of employment.
I commend them.
Thank you for your comment!
South Euclid’s government has essentially rolled over for this project in a desperate bid to get out from under the failing Cedar Center project. They’ve demonstrated more than once that they are willing to sell out their residents for the sake of development. If you listen to the way that Coral parses their words, the project is “75% leased”…but the key is that “the first PHASE of the project is 75% leased”. The exact definition of what the “first phase” comprises is up for debate since nobody at city hall will provide a definition.
Georgine Welo is on the record at several community forums for stating that she would like nothing better than to demolish several streets’ worth of homes around the Bexley Park neighborhood and “expand the park”. Ironic, considering what’s happening with Oakwood now, don’t you think?
I still have a hard time understanding the rationale for this project, unless of course, Schneider has already been approached by several large retailers who have agreed to lease space on the site as anchors.
To jnem:
Among my experience is 6 years covering real estate and development in two different parts of the country. I was paid to learn about this business, and have more direct experience with the development process than you may realize.
Your desire to let experts educate you is fine.
There’s only one problem: The only experts who are paying any attention are on the developer’s payroll.
While I closely covered perhaps 20 developments of at least this size and scope during my years as a working journalist, I never saw one move so quickly and with so little push-back by local government on the many details involved. In the years since, I’ve remained curious and interested in the industry, and I’ve followed many, many other developments as a mere reader/observer – still learning along the way.
In every instance, there has been some level of community opposition – sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, sometimes well justified, sometimes less so. Opposition is almost always grassroots and non-professional (librarians, former journalists, etc.)
Why? Because communities simply aren’t filled with professionals who are paid to jump in and go to work when a project strikes them as bland and ordinary, too-quickly approved and potentially ill-advised.
The city officials who should be watching your interests are equally inexperienced with this sort of thing. And if those officials seem so enraptured by the development that they aren’t asking the hard questions, then who is responsible for saying so?
Amateurs.
And that’s why I was also so disappointed in the tone of the developer’s response. These folks deal with community opposition everywhere they go. It’s part of the job. The people who oppose them will – if the development is built – be neighbors and customers – so it’s good practice to treat them with dignity and respect, even if they make you want to gouge their eyes out.
It’s no different than a professional baseball player dealing with a heckler. You may or may not agree with the heckler, but when the ballplayer turns and whips a baseball at the guy’s chest (as Albert Belle once did in Cleveland), who do you think less of? The heckler or the million-dollar baby who makes money from the heckler’s passion?
This developer, like any other, ought to be respectful of its opponents and the people whose lives DO get negatively impacted by its work. Why? Precisely because those people ARE amateurs who have a right to fight for their cause – even if it’s the first time they’ve ever done so and they ARE rough around the edges.
Does that mean you shouldn’t criticize Fran? Or me? Go ahead. But I’d have a lot more respect and comfort with the developer if it carried itself like the great, worldy experienced organization that it claims to be.
To Bob:
I appreciate learning more about you and it helps to clarify your wanting to cover this situation/development as a journalist and as a community member.
This original post has created several great responses regarding the future of Oakwood. I agree that the grassroots movements are extremely important to the long-term well being of not only our community, but also our nation. And I understand that there are going to be some people in the community who are going to oppose this and any development that directly affects them. But in the long run, if such a development impacts the entire community for the good, then isn’t that better for the community? Sure some people aren’t happy, but the majority rules in this country. And if the majority of the people benefit from this development, then it should proceed as planned. On one hand you have a company who has made an effort to improve the communities that it has a footprint in. First Interstate’s site lists awards for landscape and architectural design at some of its properties. That’s impressive. On the other hand you have a grassroots movement that is using rumors and perceptions to try and sway the uninformed on this development. Read the posts above. Future Heights has no direct proof of a Wal-Mart store going into this location but the Wal-Mart name is being slung like mud at every reader to this blog site. And I do take exception with your post regarding First Interstates response in which you wrote:
“Speaking strictly as a community member, I find First Interstate’s response to Fran’s post to be unseemly, sarcastic and unbecoming.”
Did you speak to someone at First Interstate to hear the tone of their voice, or was it the way you read the article and the voice in your head that made it seem condescending to the rest of us. Because I have to say (again) that I certainly did not see it that way. But perhaps that is only because I am just a lowly reader and not a prized writer, so I cannot quite understand the punctuation and how it lends to the tone or feeling of the writer. Instead of using the phrase “I find First Interstate’s response….”, you should have used the phrase “It is my opinion that First Interstate’s response….” and then followed that up with “But again, this is just my opinion and I did not directly speak with First Interstate so I am only SPECULATING (not a typo: you should emphasize your thoughts so they are not taken out of context and re-edited before publishing) that they were being very sarcastic while trying to accurately describe some ACTUAL FACTS (yes caps again, sorry you really need to emphasize it) about the proposed development.
Finally, I am trying to figure out the Albert Belle scenario. Specifically, who is Albert and who is the heckler? The way I see it is that Albert (you and Fran) could care less about the heckler (me and anyone else of little significance who oppose your methods of arguing against the development). But instead of throwing the ball at the heckler, you are trying to put strike three into the heart and soul of the person standing beside the heckler who is rooting for the whole team (First Interstate and the South Euclid City government in support of their community). Problem is your aim is bad and the heckler will grab the ball and throw it back at you.
Please re-read my entry for accuracy.
I used the term Big Box, the developer has been honest and clear that this will be Big Box. I will take Binxie and her owner 50 ft from any Big Box and take a picture. 50 ft is 50 ft.
The Planning Director of Cleveland Heights asked for 150ft buffer for the sake of the residents living along Oakwood. This request was ignored.
We asked the developer directly about Walmart and have his email response.
He did not deny Walmart was under consideration. He said negotiations are private. Of course they are. But, if he was not going to approach or accept Walmart as a tenant he could have said so.
You should identify yourself as Bob and I have done.
This is not about individuals, but about Oakwood.
But, it is only fair that if you target me and Bob, that you identify yourself.
A handful of people, the developer and his global investment group, who do not live here, and don’t care about the community will make money by ripping up the largest remaining greenspace in the inner ring suburbs of Cleveland.
Big box retail is destructive to communities and local business.
If you know the developer or work for him, please tell him we need his expertise and the resources of his global investment group.
We need development. We need and welcome it. We want the right kind in the right place.
We oppose the rezoning of Oakwood.
This is our community.
jnem17:
Neither FutureHeights as an organization, nor I as an individual, have ever claimed or supported Fran’s assertion that any particular retailer has committed to the development. Per the disclaimer at the top-left corner of this website and on the FAQ page, Fran’s opinions are her own.
Fran,
My name is Jack. I am a resident of South Euclid. You can refer to me as:
a. Jack
b. Mr. Jack
c. Jackson (my dad’s name was Jack and I am his son)
d. Jack Jr. (see above)
I have been keeping up with the Oakwood discussions because I am a resident and I have a right, as do you, to have an opinion. And my opinion is that you absolutely have no concept of what you are doing. So I thought I would educate anyone else interested in reading this blog to how I came up with this opinion.
FACT #1 – You were a party to the picture taking because you wrote the article and stated “we took the attached pictures on 5/1/11”.
Unless there was a mix-up in editing????
You asked me to reread your original entry for accuracy and I did. As I reread the entry I noticed you never did use the name “Wal-Mart” once (kudos to you and your keen sense of generalizing the term BIG BOX to disguise your true intentions)
FACT #2 – Of the 8 pictures attached to the post, 3 of them prominently display the Wal-Mart sign.
FACT #3 – Binxie appeared in more photos (4) than the Wal-Mart sign.
FACT #4 – The caption for photo 5 states “Where residents now see the beauty of Oakwood they will see this instead.” The Wal-Mart sign is dead center in this photo.
FACT #5 – The caption for photo 7 states “Tear up Oakwood and replace with this when we already have one a mile away? The Wal-Mart sign is in the upper left corner of this photo.
From Wikipedia – “Journalistic theory generally holds that news items should be objective, giving the reader an accurate background and analysis of the subject at hand…The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group…What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people’s understanding through deception and confusion rather than persuasion and understanding.
Opinion on Facts #1-5 – Your blogs about Oakwood consist of no facts. You are obsessed with using deceptive tactics to sway the uninformed public.
FACT #6 – One of your blogs is titled:. Rumor: Oakwood rezoning traded for Cedar Center bailout
Opinion on Fact #6 – You certainly could have looked into this rumor without posting as a blog, but the headline would draw negative attention to the Oakwood development.
Fact #7 – You write in one of your response’s “A handful of people, the developer and his global investment group, who do not live here, and don’t care about the community will make money by ripping up the largest remaining greenspace in the inner ring suburbs of Cleveland.
Fact #8 – You write in the same response: “If you know the developer or work for him, please tell him we need his expertise and the resources of his global investment group.
Opinion on Facts 7 & 8 – This truly identifies your lack of credibility for anything concerning the developer. You don’t want them…you do want them…they don’t care about the community….the community needs their expertise and resources…
And Finally…
Fact #9 – I, jnem17, have identified both you and Bob in previous posts.
Opinion – Fran, your journalism/reporting/blogging regarding Oakwood is hypocritical and misleading. You are presenting half truths, rumors and propaganda in an effort to achieve something that suits your needs. What you are really doing for your community is proving to them that it is OK TO BE DECEITFUL TO GET WHAT YOU THINK YOU WANT OR NEED. You are a cancer to those who actually care about this community and are diligent in researching the facts. I am merely pointing that out to anyone who might actually be reading these posts.
Bob,
While FutureHeights or you, as an individual, have never claimed to support any of Fran’s assertions, it it obvious that you DO support her baseless posts by publishing them on this site.
FROM your FAQ page: Posts are not edited or pre-screened, but may be removed upon review of the Heights Observer’s volunteer editorial committee, for the following reasons:
– Willful misrepresentation of documented facts.
Several of my posts have proved her assertiations are without credibility, thus representing a misrepresentation of facts to the followers of this site.