Archive for the ‘Whitman rezoning’ Category

Just to clarify (an apology)

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

It has been brought to my attention that perhaps I have been somewhat critical of those who are a part of Bedford Watch. Let me make this clear, that was not my intent. I’ve long told friends (who sometimes roll their eyes at me when I say this) that perception trumps intention and I firmly believe that.

I can see where my words sometimes were critical of the individuals and I  hope that those people will accept a sincere apology.  I’ve made it abundantly clear that I have a certain level of respect for those a part of Bedford Watch – especially Doug, Judy, and Dennis who seemingly put in a tremendous amount of time and effort into what they believed was right. The amount of time they spent researching, calling others, going to meetings, trials, etc., is beyond what most of us would ever dream of doing. For that I respect them greatly.

My point throughout all of this was to be critical of the approach in battling the referendum. I certainly was not against Bedford Watch for their stance, as we’re all entitled to our opinions and determinations, I was against their method. A method I couldn’t agree with. Stretching truths, using intimidation, and making this about Wal Mart wasn’t something I could stand behind. 

I received a couple of e mails from people who had contacted Bedford Watch that included the, ‘… and we know who you are’ statement – heck, I even got one in commentary on this blog. I heard about absentee ballot requests being left in mailboxes (by those who didn’t intend to absentee vote). I read the stretched truths on the website.  I read about Wal Mart … again, and again, and again.

I wish the path taken to fight this rezoning would have been a bit more honest in nature. Was Wal Mart a possibility, absolutely it was. Was it likely, heck no. Not without parcel 6 being changed to C-2 or C-3. In fact a more likely scenario had the administrative rezoning of parcel 6 gone to PBO (or even if it remained R2-A) is we would have seen something in the likes of a boutique shopping area such as Levis Commons (on a much smaller scale). And why wasn’t it mentioned that a Wal Mart could be built on that property as it stands right now?! 

I have nothing against Bedford Watch and who am I to say they have no right to fight for what they believe in? I do, however, have a right to call out their methods and approaches which I feel I did while maintaining a very civil, honest, and direct approach. If I offended any of the members of Bedford Watch I do sincerely apologize – this wasn’t about you as individuals as it was about the way in which you were presenting your case.

I’m immensely proud of this blog and the work I put into it. I do my homework and I come to my conclusions and share those conclusions. I have made attempts to reach out to every corner of this township in order to share stories and commentary from all around. I will continue to do so. I will also continue to do my homework and speak my mind on issues; whether I be right or wrong. We’re all entitled to our opinions and have a right to share those opinions – I will continue to share mine and I hope that you all will too.

-Keith

Tags: ,
Posted in Bedford Township, Bedford Watch, Neighbors, Whitman rezoning | No Comments »

Letter to the Editor (submitted to Toledo Blade)

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

The article I am reacting to can be found here.

After reading the article I penned this response and submitted it to the Editor for consideration to be published in the Letters to the Editor section of The Blade:

I’m disappointed in The Blade’s reporting of the recent referendum vote that took place in Bedford Township. To imply that the measure was resoundingly defeated is disingenuous at best and completely misrepresentative of the truth. The measure was defeated by a mere 289 votes with a very small portion of registered voters actually participating in the vote.

 

More so than the poor choice in verbiage in the article I was aghast at the headline implying that this vote somehow turned down the development of a Wal Mart store. This vote was never about Wal Mart; the will of a small minority made this vote about something it was not. This vote was about appropriate land use and nothing more.  The scare tactics and fear mongering of some made this vote about the possibility of a Wal Mart. Let us not forget the fact that as the property is zoned presently a Wal Mart could be developed without a rezoning request.

 

I’m disappointed in the outcome of the referendum vote – not because I desire a Wal Mart in Bedford Township but because the fears of a few petrified a township of people away from possibly seeing a long time vacant piece of land being developed into something useful.

Tags: ,
Posted in Bedford Township, Whitman rezoning | 8 Comments »

Vote May 5, 2009! (plus some housecleaning)

Monday, May 4th, 2009

First some housecleaning. I’m disappointed to say that I’ve had to repost  the page explaining that derogatory commentary left on this blog will be deleted.  Agree, disagree, I truly don’t mind. However, I will mind if disagreements are made in a derogatory or foul manner.

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.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Bedford Now, Bedford Public Schools, Bedford Township, Bedford Township Government, Bedford Watch, Whitman rezoning | 2 Comments »

Bedford Watch still up to their antics

Friday, April 24th, 2009

I made a visit to the Bedford Watch website a few moments ago and got a good chuckle out of this:

A NO vote means NO Wal Mart

So this means:

A YES vote means YES to Wal Mart

Again, no. More propoganda from the highly biased Bedford Watch group. Their continued use of scare tactics should be noted by all citizens of this township.

This vote on May 5th, in terms of the refeendum, should be about land use and not the potential for what the development could possibly be. Is a Wal Mart a possibility, sure … one would have to believe that. However, if one could believe that then I suppose the list of possibilities that are not Wal Mart would also have to be looked at – and that list is much longer.

People of Bedford and those who plan to vote on May 5th … there is absolutely, 100%, no factual proof that if this land is rezoned that a Wal Mart is going to be developed and placed on that land right now. None. Ziltch, zero, nada. Bedford Watch’s continued fear mongering is the only reason the big W is of any concern.

Please vote your conscience, whatever it may be, and do not succumb to the continued fear mongering of what is obviously a very biased group.

Tags:
Posted in Bedford Township, Bedford Watch, Whitman rezoning | 2 Comments »

Ballot Language for May 5th Referendum Vote

Friday, April 24th, 2009

There has been some discussion that the ballot language for the referendum vote may be somewhat confusing.  Directly from the ballot itself is this following statement.

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.

Tags:
Posted in Bedford Township, Bedford Township Government, Whitman rezoning | No Comments »

Just the facts? No, no it’s not.

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

In an effort to begin supporting a vote FOR the referendum vote coming up this May I took a gander at the newly fandangled Bedford Watch website. They have a section titled ‘Just the Facts’ which is highly misleading – don’t get me wrong as there are some facts but what has been the case more often than not with Bedford Watch is some truths (facts) are stretched or speculative while others are just all together not true.

 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.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Bedford Now, Bedford Township, Bedford Township Government, Bedford Watch, Whitman rezoning | 4 Comments »

Bedford Watch will seek referendum

Friday, December 5th, 2008

The community activist group Bedford Watch will be seeking referendum on the recent rezoning approval of the Whitman land at the intersection of Sterns and Lewis. A referendum is a direct vote, done during a special election, by the entire community that will either affirm the township board’s decision on the rezoning or overturn it. From the Bedford Watch website:

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.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Bedford Township, Bedford Township Government, Bedford Watch, Whitman rezoning | 1 Comment »

The Whitman Vote and thoughts

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

This past Tuesday’s vote was very likely one of the most watched votes in the history of our fair township. It seems everyone has an opinion on the rezoning of the land owned by the Whitman family at the intersection of Sterns and Lewis. Not surprising to anyone is the fact that I have many opinions to share; opinions not just over the rezoning but also of some individuals.

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?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Bedford Township, Bedford Township Government, Bedford Watch, Whitman rezoning | No Comments »

Similarities on Sterns?

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

Ok, so after reading, deciphering, and coming to a (speculative) conclusion I proved myself wrong and then right. You’ll see.

It was my earlier contention that there were similarities between 2008 Indian Acres residents and 2000 New Colonial Gardens residents. 2008 Indian Acres residents are battling the potential rezoning of land immediately east of their neighborhood on Sterns while in 2000 New Colonial Gardens residents were up in arms about the potential Kroger Plaza being built immediately east of their neighborhood off of Sterns. HOWEVER, the land Kroger was to be built on was also zoned C-2 Shopping Center; therefore, no rezoning needed to take place for the plaza to be built.

BUT

I did find out some history where my contention was off approximately 21 years. Follow along.

The land at Secor and Sterns had been zoned C-2 Shopping Center dating way back into the 60s. In December of 1978 Bedford Land Improvement, Inc. came to the township asking that all but 25 acres be rezoned. The rezoning asked that 9.92 acres on the far west side of the parcel be changed from C-2 to RM-2 (multiple family) and an additional 6.55 acres adjoining the other parcel from C-2 to R-2B (multiple family and single family).

At that time residents of New Colonial Gardens (the subdivision immediately west of present day Kroger) were against the rezoning. Unfortunately the minutes do not indicate why. The motion to approve and reject never passed the Planning Commission  on December 20, 1978 mostly do to an absent member; the votes for each went 3-3. At this time the Township Board would have the final say.

There was something that caught my eye in the minutes which leads me to believe why the residents were against the rezoning. Richard Mueller, a PC member at the time, stated that there had been no commerical growth at the intersection of Secor and Sterns for the past ten years. This would date back to 1968. It is my contention and belief that the reason they were against rezoning the land was because they wished for that area to remain void of any structures – residential or commerical!

Unfortunately for the residents on February 6, 1979 (the night before I was born!) the township board by a vote of 4-3 voted to approve the rezoning. Needless to say the residents weren’t happy and the predecessor to BedfordWatch.com was born. The residents petitioned and gained a referendum forcing a special election to overturn the rezoning that was approved …. and won! At this time the entirety of the property returned to C-2 Shopping Center zoning.

So I was wrong in my contention about a similarity between Indian Acres residents of today and residents of Colonial Gardens in 2000. However, I was somewhat correct … just off a few years!

I’ve tried to find articles indicating displeasure regarding Kroger building there and creating a plaza and haven’t come up with much – mostly because internet archives for the BN and MEN don’t date back past 2005 it appears. I found one quote from the recent Whitman meeting, made by Gail Keane, that mentioned the anxiety of residents living near Secor and Sterns circa 2000 regarding the Kroger build but that she believed it turned out ok.  I would tend to agree and it appears that during the site plan approval meetings in 2000 that Kroger made it of great importance to listen to the nearby residents and address their concerns. The type of lighting was discussed, an agreement to move a dumpster, ensure that there would be no loading docks behind the strip plaza, and that deliveries would only occur during normal waking hours, and that trucks would enter and exit off of Secor Rd.

It seems to me a lot can get done at the site plan approval meetings. This could be of great benefit to the Indian Acres residents.

I still support the rezoning. If it is of great issue to the Indian Acres residents should the rezoning pass they should follow suit of the New Colonial Gardens residents of 1979. Otherwise work through the proper channels to ensure that any potential disturbances are discussed and handled via site planning approvals. It seems to me that Kroger has been a great corporate neighbor (I live nearby myself). The lights aren’t intrusive (it’s quite dark behind the plaza at night), the area is well maintained, they sponsor the car show, etc. Who is to say that a similar great corporate neighbor couldn’t be a part of that property at Sterns and Lewis?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Bedford Township, Bedford Watch, Whitman rezoning | No Comments »

Whitman Rezoning Decision

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

There has been a lot going on recently regarding the recent decision by the Planning Commission to recommend rezoning several parcels of land at the corner of Lewis Ave and Sterns Rd (commonly referred to as the Whitman land).

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.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Bedford Township, Bedford Township Government, Bedford Watch, Neighbors, Whitman rezoning | No Comments »