Second piece of housecleaning is this – this blog is fully maintained and supported by me, Keith Godfrey. It is not maintained, created by, or have any creative control from any employee at The Monroe Evening News, Bedford Now, or any other individual. All thoughts expressed here are my own.

Ok.

So big vote tomorrow, Tuesday, May 5, 2009. On the ballot will be decision on the school Sinking Fund Millage as well as the referendum vote for the rezoning on the land commonly referred to as the Whitman Property located at the northwest corner of Lewis and Sterns.

I encourage everyone to get out and vote on these very important issues. I encourage your vote even if it is not in agreement with mine.

For the record I encourage a yes vote on both issues.

Our schools are the cornerstone of our community. If you think property values have taken a hit recently you’ll be stunned what happens to them when our schools begin to deteriorate. Say what you will about needed cuts and things of that nature, I tend to agree there are cuts to be made, but this millage will bring in monies needed for repairs to our schools – not operating budget, not preventative maintenance, etc. This money will be used exclusively to replace old boilers, leaky roofs, and major issues of that nature.  A ‘YES’ vote is mandatory for the continued survival of our schools.

A yes vote on the referendum should also be heavily considered. Individually we must vote with our heads and our hearts and not be distracted by the continued fear tactics that have been employed by a small vocal minority who is against the rezoning of the land presently owned by Jon Whitman.  Just very recently, on this blog, a comment was left with the typical ‘we know who you are’ mantra that has been employed by Bedford Watch. I’ve been informed by several other individuals that they’ve received these same type of emails/comments when they’ve been in direct disagreement with this group.

Well, Bedford Watch, we know who you are too. A completely biased, angry group, hell bent at ensuring that this rezoning does not go through at nearly any cost. Fear mongering, intimidation, placing absentee ballot requests in people’s mailboxes, blatantly publishing mistruths and lies on your website.

If your organization is truly the community watchdog you claim it to be then how come there is no commentary on the Sinking Fund millage for the schools, cutbacks at township hall, the Taco Bell being built right next to residential land, the need for monies for our parks, or any other issues that effect this township. In fact, since the inception of your group you’ve had one issue you’ve dealt with and been focused on. Listen, that is fine by me, however, don’t pretend to be something you’re not – which is a community watch dog group. Honestly, if the rezoning of this land (which presently has no purchaser or developer) is the biggest issue facing this township then we’re in deeper trouble that I thought.

Your vote on the referendum should not be influenced by the fear mongering perpetrated by some. Your vote should be influenced by your conscience and what you think is the best potential land use for the property in question. Is a Wal Mart a possibility, sure it is. However, so are other countless possible commercial businesses and developments that could go into that property.

I plan to vote yes on both issues and I hope that you will too.

A yes vote means the new zoning classifications for the five parcel portions of the Whitman property approved on December 2, 2008, will be in effect. A no vote means the five parcel portions of the Whitman property will return to their original zoning classifications in effect prior to the rezonings

To clarify, a yes vote indicates your desire to approve of the rezoning as voted on by our township board on December 2, 2008. A no vote indicates your desire to have the zoning return to it’s orginal usage prior to the rezoning vote.

 Before I get into the ‘facts’ let me preface something – I in no way have an issue with the people affiliated with Bedford Watch who have dedicated countless hours of their time in support of a cause which they truly believe in. I do have a fondness for that type of dedication and love for one’s community (even if community in this sense equates to neighborhood). However, I do find extreme fault with misrepresentations, half truths, no truths, and scare tactics (by which I mean an unhealthy infatuation with Wal Mart).

 Now, nothing but the facts, ma’am.

 Master Plan

Bedford Watch likes to discuss the Bedford Township Master Plan … a lot. One of the issues I have with this is that the group likes to continually bring up that the Master Plan recognizes the City of Toledo as a commerical business center supporting the needs of the township.

Between 1990 and the 2006 estimated population Bedford Township has experienced nearly a 32% gain in population rising to nearly 32,000 residents making the township the City of Toledo’s largest suburb and the largest city or township in the County of Monroe (by population). It is no longer reasonable to expect the City of Toledo to continue to be a commerical center for Bedford Township.

 Property Taxes

Under this heading Bedford Watch lets us all know if a big box store was built in the township we’d all have an increase in property taxes (yet elsewhere in the same document argue that our property values will decrease) because we will be forced to hire more police and fire personnel.

 First of all this is purely speculative and completely lacks any legitimate proof.

 Second, Bedford Watch fails to take into account the fact that beyond the deputies that the township pays for there is a larger police presence in the township as the County Sheriff can deploy more deputies to the township and the State Troopers also patrol the area as well. 

Roads

Actually this section was rather factual. Unfortunately the section was finished with a statement about the roads leading to this area are 2 lanes (while Lewis is actually 5 at that area) and not 5 lane highways. This is, like I said, largely true. However, what is not mentioned is that during site plan approvals the developer could be made to agree to improve the road surrounding the area during development, up to and including widening the road, installation of traffic lights, etc.

 Traffic

Bedford Watch wants you to believe that if a big box store was built an additional 76,000 vehicles would travel on our roads weekly. This figure is based on an average derived from the development of other Wal Marts from throughout the country and not through any impact study done on the development of the property in question. Therefore, this figure is strictly speculative at best and most certainly doesn’t take into account the fact that there are two other Wal Marts, two Home Depots, a Meijer, a Menards, a Lowes, an Andersons, and a Costco all within 10 miles of the proposed development site.

 Of course what is most speculative is that a big box store is definitely going to be developed at the property in question.

 Police

This particular section got my blood boiling the most. The stretch on these statistics was so egregious that the  skew on these statistics is sickening.

 Bedford Watch states that the township has a population of 32,000 (accurate) and an additional 76,000 shoppers per week would visit the township should a big box store be built at the property in question (speculative both in the amount of shoppers and the development) creating a total weekly ‘population’ of 108,000. The group then sites the 10 full time police officers guarateed for and paid for by the township through our levy. They then make this statement:

 That is one police officer for every 10,800 people

How do I put this politely …. no. Figures for police representation are based on 1) population and 2) daily figures not weekly.  However, to play ball I’ll allow for the addition of the 76,000 additional shoppers which equates to 10,857 people daily. Therefore the daily ‘population’ of the township would become 42,857 making the representation of police per resident 1:4,286 (notice that is more than half of the figure Bedford Watch presented).

 The part that made me most sick in my stomach was when the group makes a comparison to the City of Toledo and their police presence. They state Toledo has a police force of approximately 600 and a population of around 300,000 making their police to resident ratio about 1:500.

 Do you see what was done there – Bedford Watch attempted to make the development into such an issue with police protection that they first added to the population of Bedford by assuming the presence of shoppers and then used a weekly figure to make it seem so statistically out of whack with Toledo’s figure that you would be beyond frightful of any development. If you’re going to add statistics like shoppers into the equation you must do it for both examples. To make a fair comparison to these figures the representations should appear as this:

 

Toledo – 1:500

Bedford Township – 1:3,200

 I have long said the police presence in the township isn’t enough (same goes for fire protection); however, these issues shouldn’t preclude the potential for development. In fact, the potential for development ought to create the debate to expand the services we already require!

Crime

Oi vey here we go again.  I’ve touched on this subject on numerous occassion on Bedford Now’s Chatter. Once again Bedford Watch searches out the means to give you the highest figure in order to frighten you and again the word Wal Mart shows up.

 Bedford Watch states that they did a study on the police reports made at the nearest Wal Mart to Sterns and Lewis (they state its the Wal Mart located at  Central and Holland-Sylvania Rd in Toledo while it is actually the Wal Mart on Navarre in Oregon, OH). I, naturally, found a couple of issues with the way they reported their findings.

 First, they stated that over a 5 year period that the Sylvania Township Police Department made 741 reports inside or outside the Wal Mart on Central. 741 sounds like an awful lot doesn’t it? Well let’s break that down over 5 years - 5 years multiplied by 365 days equates to 1825 days and then we add one day for leap year and get a total of 1826. Dividing 741 reports in 1826 days gives us a daily average of 0.41 reports. Doesn’t seem as concerning now does it?

 Also, Bedford Watch’s study isn’t a fair assessment for another reason as it completely negates any sort of geographic comparison. By this I mean finding a community that is similar to Bedford Township that presently has a Wal Mart, finding a Wal Mart that would be similarly situated (cross roads, expressway access, etc.). My example in the Chatter section was Oregon, OH. The median income in comparison to Bedford was similar, the crime concerns in the community are similar to Bedford’s, and the location to crime areas in Toledo are fairly close.

 The issue I take with using the Central Avenue location is that it is located less than a mile from a major expressway and located literally in the backyard of a high crime and drug area within the City of Toledo. The comparisons are simply not fair and again used to put fear in the minds of township residents.

 Home Values

Bedford Watch is saying that home values in the area would immediately drop $40,000. A quick perusal of the Township’s Land ans Property Search function on the Township’s website shows that homes were recently bought in the $130K-$150K range. You expect me to reasonably believe that these homes, overnight, would all of a sudden sell for $90K-$110K? Too hard to believe.

My next endeavour will be to attempt to determine if there was any decline in home sale prices in the Colonial neighborhoods around Secor and Sterns after the Kroger development. Anything greater than a 19% drop (the estimated drop in home values in the township due to the economic downturn) will lend credence to this argument. To give you an idea a $40,000 decline on a home that was previously valued (sales value) at $140,000 would be about 28%, on $150,00 about 26%, $180,000 about 22%.

 Tax benefit

Bedford Watch states that the tax benefit of a big box store would only be about $0.66 per resident.  This figure is based solely on property tax fees that would be paid directly to the township. This excludes property tax fees paid to the county and the state.

 It also excludes sales tax, business tax, income taxes, etc. Unless you have lived in a cave the past few years you’re aware that our economy is tanking, quickly, and our state is crippling due to a lack of money to operate.  Commerical growth ought to be viewed as a good thing as it increases the state’s revenues. Since the township and our schools largely depend on the state being financially strong we ought to be pushing for solid development than can increase our coffers! For crying out loud the governor just announced plans to scale back per pupil funding to our public schools!

 There are many more subheadings in this section of the website – several of which could be left alone. The word Wal Mart shows up frequently as does the continual ripping of Jon Whitman.

 Here are some closing facts:

1) There is no tangible proof that if the rezoning sticks that a Wal Mart will be built on the Whitman property.

2) Jon Whitman has every right to seek this rezoning and to sell to whom he wishes and for the highest price if he so desires.

3) Bedford Watch has skewed figures and statistics to place fear in the minds of what a potential development of a Wal Mart might mean to this township. In fact throughout their website they don’t claim the development to be a possibility they actually call it a ‘proposed development’. Interesting since there’s been no sale!

4) Many issues and concerns can and would be addressed during site plan approval – including the roads around that area.

5) Lewis Ave. is the commerical corridor for Temperance much like Secor is for Lambertville.

I will continue to research this subject and continue to fight for the passage of this referendum .. the zoning should stand.

A few months ago, around election time, I wrote a blog regarding civility in this township. Apparently said blog fell on deaf ears.

I have sat back in astonishment at the behavior of some; mainly on the forum at BedfordNow.com where certain individuals simply cannot post anything positive or without negative connotations/attitudes.

Now obviously there are some hot button issues here within the township – Whitman rezoning and the potential upcoming referendum vote, the sewer dispute on Secor south of Smith to the state line, school funding, etc. Lots of different individuals have differing ideas on what to do in these situations or are otherwise on opposite sides of the argument. Some are classy and respectful whilst participating in debate regarding these subjects while others are degrading, demeaning, and otherwise unkind.

Why? What is there to gain to your cause by acting in such a manner? Do you honestly think people will alter their frame of mind or thinking if you belittle or demean them? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Continuing to act in these manners will only serve to further divide our community. Facing the issues that we are this could have serious and detrimental side effects. While we don’t always need to agree on issues we should be able to seek out common ground, compromise, or at least engage in respectful and civil conversation.

I will continue to engage in this type of conversation on the forum, with my neighbors, and on this blog. I certainly hope that others will join in with me. And while we’re at it .. please take the time to join the forum at BedfordNow.com and engage in the conversation there.

After meeting with our legal team, we have been informed that the only way to stop a rezoning that a township board approves is with a referendum. On December 2, 2008, the majority of the Bedford Township Board members approved 5 of the 6 Whitman Ford parcels up for rezoning.

I have spoken with the township and ascertained that a special election/referendum will cost the township an additional $8-9,000 and that Bedford Watch has been given all the information on how to appropriately seek the referendum. Should a special election be necessary the township will place the referendum vote in with another election such as a school election to keep added costs down.

One township official I spoke to is pleased at the possibility of referendum as it puts the vote in the hands of the community and would essentially (in my own words) seal the deal.

One question I did not ask and I wish I would have but it just came to me right now is if there is a referendum vote will the voters of the community be asked to affirm or overturn each parcel or the property as a whole? It’d be interesting to see if the same five parcels were affirmed and the decision on parcel six be overturned and therefore rezoned C-2. My assumption is that the referendum vote would simply ask to affirm or deny the decision made by the board.

And slightly unrelated to this I wanted to clear up something that Mr. Jim Goebel made reference to during the meeting in regards to low income senior housing. I think the words low income are intended to frighten people or just have that negative stigma attached to it. For a perfectly great example of low income senior housing already in our township take a look at Ivor Lindsay on Lewis Ave in Temperance. The facility is kept up nicely, the grounds are taken care of, and the residents are genuinely nice people from what I am told. Low income senior housing should it be placed on the rezoned land at Sterns and Lewis should be of no concern to anyone in this community as we’ve seen little to no issue from existing low income senior housing already established here.

The vote on the rezoning went as I had thought it would with the approval of five of the six parcels; the one parcel, parcel number six, that was denied rezoning was the same parcel that was not recommended by our township planning commission for rezoning. This is the parcel that sat nearly dead center of the piece of land in question and was about 8 acres in size. Whitman was requesting the zoning be changed from R2-A single-family residential to C-2 commerical. The concern of the board was that completely rezoning this parcel would not allow for a sufficient buffer for the homes adjacent to the west side of the property from the potential commercial land use to the east side of this property.

I’m not entirely sold on that particular theory in that a lot of the ‘pollutions’ of commercial zoning can be hashed out in site plan approvals. A simple look at the approval process for Bedford’s largest commercial development at this time, Kroger, shows that the developers and representatives of Kroger were more than accomodating with the type of lighting installed, delivery times, where docking stations would be located, and the even moved where a dumpster was proposed to be placed to eliminate the threat of disturbing neighbors with early morning trash pickup. Living close to the Kroger development I have spent some time monitoring the lighting issues, the truck issues, the roads issues, etc. I don’t see the issue with this particular commercial neighbor.

Yes, I understand had the rezoning of that eight acres gone through one would be looking at a considerably larger commercial development. However, I am not convinced that size and scope automatically equate to bad commercial neighbor.

Honestly, in this man’s opinion, the biggest issue with the vote and the reason I feel that those eight acres were honestly turned down was due to the possible sale of the land to one Wal Mart. The big bad ,local business destroying, will leave empty boxes allover our township Wal Mart. Again, a notion I do not completely agree with.

Bedford Watch, a local ‘community activist’ group was adamant against this rezoning and their focal point was that if the land is rezoned then it will be sold with absolute certainty to Wal Mart. Don’t believe me? Check out their website where the group is seemingly obsessed with Wal Mart and it’s hell bent nature of destroying small towns. Wal Mart would destroy our roads, put a further pinch on our police and fire protection, would put 100 local businesses out of work, and would quash commercial development throughout the township.

Remember those old T-shirts that said Fear This? I was fully expecting to see a mock shirt of these old T-shirts from Bedford Watch – Wal Mart: Fear It! I’m not trying to be crass as that is an honest opinion. The Bedford Watch group it seemed purposely tried to play on people’s fears and to their heart strings; they were selling people on the fact that because Jon Whitman had a deal with Wal Mart before that he did now.

Bedford Watch said our roads would deteriorate and that an additional 76,000 cars per day would drive on Sterns and Lewis. How did they arrive at this figure? Is it because it’s a national average and we’ll assume that national averages equate to the consumers in this area? I do not know the answer but 76,000 additional vehicles is an awful lot of vehicles and a figure I find to be highly unlikely.

I agree with Bedford Watch that our roads would deteriorate; there is not a sane person with any level of understand on this that would disagree. However, I don’t believe that this reason alone should preclude commercial development. First, I am certain prior to development an impact study would be performed on what type of impact the development would have on the infrastructure in that immediate area. This impact study would then allow for our Site Plan committee to instruct the developer that they will be responsible for the upgrades in that area as a part of their development. This is a common practice, not only in Bedford Township, but everywhere. For example in Monroe when the Wal Mart was built the local government required Wal Mart to pay to repave the road (expand?) and put in traffic control systems in that area.

Bedford Watch said that a Wal Mart would put a further pinch on our police and fire. They used scary figures like 714 calls to the ‘closest’ Wal Mart in Toledo on Central Ave in the past two years. They failed to qualify a couple of things. First, this particular Wal Mart is located on the corner of two very busy streets that allow for simple ingress and egress from the store location and that it is located less than 1 mile from a major expressway cutting through the area. Two, they failed to mention that this particular Wal Mart is located within walking distance of some low income areas of the City of Toledo.

Bedford Watch failed to consider a lot of things in their Wal Mart and crime argument. One of the biggest I found was that the particular Wal Mart they used as their example isn’t the closest to our township. I used the Lewis and Sterns as the epicenter of this argument of mine and found that the Wal Mart in Oregon, OH is actually a full 3 miles closer than the one used in their examples.

I found this to be intriguing for a couple of reasons. The location of the Oregon, OH Wal Mart is much more synonymous with the type of development that would occur in our own township. The size of the community the store resides in is similar to Bedford as is the median income. The Oregon, OH store is approximate in location to low income and crime areas to what a development at Sterns and Lewis would be. Why do I mention all of this? Because according to an anti-Wal Mart website that Oregon, OH store has only had 53 police complaints from 2002-2005.

Finally, Bedford Watch wanted you to believe that Wal Mart would put all of our local businesses out of business. I thought Mr. Gene Stock made a wonderful presentation and point at the township meeting about the first ‘big box’ that ever came to Bedford and the actual economic boom that came with it. One could point not only to the Oregon, OH Wal Mart as an example but also to the Wal Mart located on Glendale in the city of Toledo. Commercial development sprang to life on Glendale Ave. in an area that previously was a big empty open field that previously had shown no signs of life.

I do not wish for this entire argument to revolve around Wal Mart as it never should have to begin with. The point I am trying to make is that Wal Mart is not necessarily some scray Godzilla like monster that could come into our township and kill it’s make up and charm.

For the record I am not pro-Wal Mart whatsoever but that has more to do with their support of Chinese and foreign products than it does anything else.

Back to the point – this whole mess never should have involved, revolved around, and had anything to do with Wal Mart. As Supervisor Walt Wilburn said the rezoning votes are based solely on land use and the speculative nature of what that land use could become. I’ve previously tried to say that but did do poorly on the Bedford Now Chatter. I think once everyone has a firm understanding of that then this issue will go away peacefully.

Now some other random thoughts from the vote night:

- I can appreciate Ms. Sherri Meyer’s no votes on the parcels with the exception of the parcels due north and south of the dealership. These parcels would have little to no effect on the day-to-day lives of the residents of Indian Acres of they were rezoned (which they were). It creates the thought in my mind that all of these no votes were simply no votes for political posturing. If memory serves me right Mr. Jim Goebel voted no on all of the parcels with the exception of the two due north and south of the dealership. Please correct me if I am wrong.

- Where were all the people who supported rezoning all six parcels? Was it really only Mr. Stock?!?

- If I heard the words Northtowne Mall one more time I think I was going to throw up. Yes, there were crime problems over there as that area is notorious for issues with crime because its located in a hot bed for it! Sure, our township is only a short drive from there but don’t you think if all the miscreants were going to come here and cause trouble they already have?

- The very public excoriation of Mr. Paul Francis by Bedford Watch leader Doug (unknown last name) and Mr. Dennis Steinman were uncalled for. Mr. Francis has no legal conflict of interest in this case and there was no need to recuse himself from the vote or abstain. He stands to receive no financial gain from the rezoning or eventual sale of this land. Nor does he have any fiduciary ties.

I am certain this is not the last of this issue. Bedford Watch will move their fight to another arena, Jon Whitman could likely take the township to court again over the denial of parcel number six, recall efforts, who knows?!?!

All I hope for is that Bedford Watch becomes who they say they are .. a group of citizens who are concerned for their own investment and their own property. There is nothing wrong with that … nothing at all. I can respect that just don’t represent yourself as a community watch dog when you’re only watching out for yourselves. Also, drop the fear mongering and deliver a proper, consistent, and legal message don’t play on speculative fears give me a real reason for concern.
Reports from those physically present at the meeting (I viewed on TV) was that Mr. Steinman showed up more than halfway through the meeting, paced around until public commentary time, made his statement and then left. Mr. Steinman had to be reminded to speak towards the Supervisor repeatedly and was waving his finger around and making a mockery of the system he was a part of for 28 years. He knows better than to act like that at a public meeting.

Reports also say that when Mr. Francis made his apology to Doug from Bedford Watch that Doug was seen rolling his eyes.

I suppose I should bump my blog on civility back to the top of this page?

Supervisor: Walt Wilburn
Treasurer: Sherri Meyer
Clerk: Bob Schockman
Trustees: Gail Hauser-Hurley, Larry O’Dell, James Goebel, and Paul Francis

I hope that in this time of economic turmoil that we face nationally, in the state, and within our own township that each and every one of our elected officials will cast aside any differences in the name of unity and togetherness; this is precisely what we require from our officials as we face daunting financial decisions in an uncertain economy.

To our seven elected office holders please note that we will all be watching you very closely to see how you guide our township and we will be proactive. We will raise our voices at concerns and rejoice together in triumph. All of us, including yourselves, only hope for the best in this township. Please keep that in mind when making your decisions and casting your votes.

Thanks and congratulations.

Obviously there were no surprises in the race for Supervisor and Treasurer as those seats were uncontested. Walt Wilburn (Supervisor) and Sherri Meyer (Treasurer) will serve another four years for our township.

In what I won’t call an upset but perhaps a surprise Clerk Bob Schockman held onto his post for another four years. Mr. Schockman held off George Welling who ran a tough and spirited campaign for the Clerk’s office. Mr. Schockman won 9 of 14 precints but the clear advantage came in absentee ballots (I am guessing that is what the AV stands for on the pdf sheet) where Schockman picked up 525 votes over Welling; considering the total margin was 818 this was huge. Write in candidate Dennis Steinman reportedly garnered 15 votes.

In the race for Trustee I would say there were some surprises, serious surprises. Former County Commissioner Gail Hauser-Hurley ran away with the vote total and will serve her first term on the board as will former Bedford Public Schools Superintendent James Goebel (the big shocker). Both Larry O’Dell and Paul Francis will be holdovers from the previous board.

The surprise in the trustee race, to me, is the elimination of Rick Steiner from the board, and the selection of Goebel and not Tom Covrett who is the chairman of the Planning Commission. I do think that Mr. Covrett perhaps lost some votes over his handling of the PC meeting on the Whitman property rezoning. I had assumed that Mr. Goebel would struggle due to the notion that he did not effectively lead our schools. Maybe I am the only one surprised, maybe not.

Finally, for the first time in 28 years of township board will not feature a familiar face in Dennis Steinman. I hope that, regardless of how you may feel, that we will all take the opportunity when we have it to thank Mr. Steinman for the years and countless hours he has given to this community. Not only has Mr. Steinman given back to this community he has raised his family to do the same; Tim has given generously of his time and I know was recently involved in landscaping at the Pocket Part and Doug is a volunteer fireman at the Lambertville station. Allow me to be the first to publicly thank Mr. Steinman and his family for all they have done and I am sure will continue to do for our township, thank you.

What does everyone else think? Surprised, disappointed? Share your thoughts, thanks!

Much is being said about the topic at the Bedford Now Chatter site. I am actually mildly surprised at the reaction.

My feeling is that provided Mr. Whitman develops the land according to the Master Plan then he has done no wrong. The angst towards Mr. Whitman and his family for going about rezoning their land by the channels prescribed to them by the township is ludicrous to me.

A commenter on the BN Chatter, Soccerdad, put things into perspective regarding the rezoning. Soccerdad stated the following:

C-3 is not too much different than C-2; it allows all of the same uses of C-1 and C-2, plus a few extra.  This is one of the BIGGEST misunderstandings out there that everyone needs to understand – a large-scale retail development (call it a “big-box” if you want) can be placed on EITHER a C-2 or C-3 zoning…it is not limited to just C-3.  There are CURRENTLY 20.74 acres of C-2 zoning on the Whitman property along Lewis Avenue – a large-scale retail development can come in today, and as long as the development meets the Township’s ordinances, there would be no stopping it.

Here’s another big misunderstanding out there – the PC voted to recommend approval of 2 portions of current C-2 zoning to C-3 along Lewis Avenue (about 6.9 acres).  Changing of the zoning for these 2 areas from C-2 to C-3 has virtually no affect on the ability of a large-scale retail development to be placed on the property.  There are some site-design/setback differences, but nothing significant.  Also, by ordinance, the limit to the size of a building under both C-2 and C-3 is exactly the same – 25% of the net parcel area.  Changing of these 2 areas from C-2 to C-3 does not suddenly allow a large-scale retail development to come in – they could come in today under the current C-2 zoning.

Right now much is being made of nothing. As stated above under current zoning a large retail center could be built on the property today. The denial of the rezoning of the critical parcel largely disallows a Wal Mart type of center to come in and develop the land.

Lewis Ave is the commercial corridor of Temperance. The development of this area over the past 21 years, the time I have lived in the Bedford area, has been tremendous and it will continue to grow as the township continues to grow. Look at Secor as an example. I remember moving to Bedford in 1987 and at the corner of Secor and Sterns was a couple of banks, Foodtown, a gas station, Flick’s, and the cinema.  Now both roads are four lanes through the intersection and numerous more commercial businesses and plazas have developed.

Time will tell what will happen at Lewis and Sterns but my best guess is it will include significant commercial growth in some way, shape, or form.

So what’s been going on around Bedford?

School is back in session … thankful mothers and fathers abound in the township. I know my own wife is pleased to only have one child to worry about during most of the day. My oldest daughter started Community Ed Soccer yesterday; she’s never played. She’s got a  lot to learn but we got home yesterday and immediately began working on fundamentals and she promised she wanted to do that after I get home from work tonight.  I’m a proud dad and I want her to be the best that she can be (at everything).

The football season is in full swing and the Mules find themselves at 1-2. It’s going to take Coach Wood a season or two to get this program where it belongs. The thing I like seeing is that this offense is scoring points; something we’re not necessarily accustomed to.  I wonder what kind of contribution that Wallender and Messer could have brought this team but I am happy that they’re having successful seasons, respectively, at Central Catholic in Toledo (I am a bit biased in those regards seeing as how my nephew is a Sophomore there and on the football team).

Rezoning plans on the Whitman property are back in the news. Touchy, touchy subject. My thoughts are that I believe Jon Whitman should be able to do with his land whatever he wishes provided that it fit within the reaches of the Master Plan. My other thoughts on the meeting are this:

• Did Tom Covrett cost himself a spot on the Township Board? The meeting was highly unorganized, ran long, and had little to no leadership. As Chairman of that particular board Tom needed to take control and ensure that the meeting ran smoothly and efficiently; it did not.
• I appreciated board member, Debbie (last name?) and her commentary where she pointed out that, a) couldn’t a ‘big box’ store be built there as the zoning stands now (answer: yes) and b) is there anything that Mr. Whitman could do with this land that wouldn’t met the ire of the Bedford Watch group (answer: not sure).

I’ll have more thoughts on this once further meetings are completed and we know more about the finalized rezoning of this property.

In the next week or so, as I play catch up, I will be sending out e mails to school leaders, athletic coaches, business leaders, etc. in hopes of starting a new aspect of this blog here soon. I’ll give you more info on that as the idea comes to fruition.

It’s only September and I am already sick of politics although if Sarah Palin showed up on my doorstep I may be inclined to listen.