October 27, 2015Volume 1 :: No. 2

City Attorney: Issue 38 Does Not Apply to VariancesSince July, there have been two

letters to the editor from city leaders (Norstrom and Dalcoma) stating misinformation about the impact of Issue 38.

Additionally, two news articles printed in ThisWeek Worthington News (Aug. 11 and Sept. 15) quoted misinformation from city council members and city staff.

The information published included incorrect statements about the impact of Issue 38’s passage on common residential zoning practices like variances.

Recently, the City Law Director stated, “The city interprets Issue 38 at face value and would not apply the charter amendment to anything other than zoning changes: change in the zoning map or changing the zoning definitions. The city would not apply the charter amendment to variances or any other administrative acts.”

This statement clarifies the intention and implication of the issue, if passed by voters in November.

Issue 38, also known as Keep Worthington Beautiful, will not affect a resident’s ability to install a fence or

remodel their home. It will not impact the city’s ability to pave roads.

“Keep Worthington Beautiful’s core committee consulted with an experienced elections attorney to draft language that is precise and narrowly focused on extending the referendum period for zoning legislation,” said David Robinson, spokesperson for Issue 38. “The charter already allows citizens the right of referendum on re-zoning projects and zoning law changes.”

Opponents of Issue 38, on the ‘Keep Worthington Working’ website, state information contrary to the city law

director. In the ‘get the facts’ section, it states “If the referendum passes it would apply to any ordinance passed that would change any section of the City’s planning and Zoning Code, including many of those that have nothing to do with rezoning of large scale developments...including signs, fences, [and] off-street parking.”

Since signs, fences, off-street parking codes, and other variances are considered by the city as administrative acts, Issue 38 would not apply.

Worthington’s Budget Robust Without High-Density ApartmentsWorthington operates an annual

budget of approximately $34 million. Nearly 75 percent of the budget is generated through income tax revenue. Six percent of the budget is generated through property tax.

Of the 930 cities in Ohio with population less than 18,000, Worthington has the second largest operating budget.

The ‘rainy day’ fund is currently more than $10 million, and is projected to remain around $10 million for the next five years.

Cities, like Worthington, that rely on income tax revenue are motivated to work with companies to increase jobs in order to increase income tax revenue.

There are various types of developments that companies propose to cities, including residential development, retail development, industrial development, and commerical development. Not

all developments are equal. The most attractive developments to cities are generally commercial developments, including large office complexes, medical offices, and mid-size business creation.

Commercial development generally provides the city with an increase of income tax revenue with minimal need for city services.

Industrial development, currently only approval on the Huntley Road corridor, also provide the city with an increase of tax revenue with minimal need for city services.

Retail developments vary. But generally, in Worthington, they generate relatively small amounts of income tax revenue for the city, since retail jobs pay less than professional jobs. They require more services from the city, including parking and street light maintenance.

Residential developments generate

no permanent income tax revenue, and require city services like sewage installation, storm drainage, street repairs, and snow removal. If there are non-apartment units, the city is required to provide trash pick-up and leaf collection. Additionally, residential units with school-aged children will require the school district to redistrict the school boundaries, impacting the entire district.

According to the Worthington Schools, “It is safe to say that we currently have available space in elementary schools throughout the district though we could not guarantee student placement in their nearest school.”

According to the Arthur Nelson study, current development trends in central Ohio are focused on high-density residential to accomodate the projected population growth increasing central Ohio’s population by 600,000 additional

residents by 2050.In order for a developer to build high-

density residential in Worthington, they would likely be required to request re-zoning.

One example is the United Methodist Children’s Home (UMCH) property. If Lifestyle Community submits a plan similar to their June 29 community proposal, it would add less than one percent to the city’s income tax revenue. In contrast, the financial burden to the city is likely to be more than one percent of the income tax revenue to provide the required services.

From 2007 to 2014 Worthington saw a total NET growth of 900 jobs. The six re-zoned properties accounted for 0% of that growth and 0% of the income tax revenue in that period. In contrast, those six properties use city resources, including financial incentives from the city and pay outs to the school district for lost revenue.

Educating Residents about Worthington IssuesVisit WorthingtonOhio.org for more articles.

Rela

tive

to C

ateg

orie

s Li

sted

Dol

lar a

mou

nts

vary

per

mun

icip

ality

Residential ResidentialRetail RetailIndustrial Industrial CommercialBusiness

CommercialBusiness

The Spectator is an ad hoc newspaper published by a group of community supporters, community organizations, professional journalists, and researchers. Resources for this edition can be found at the City of Worthington, Ohio Secretary of State, Franklin County Board of Elections, Arthur C. Nelson Report, and National Association of Development Organizations.To view a complete list of contributors, please view the June edition at WorthingtonOhio.org

Highest Income Tax Revenue Providers Highest Cost to the City for Services

2 :: 17 of Iyyar, 5768 :: May 22, 2008

www.thenewstandard.com The New Standard

To the Editor:

The Worthington Alliance for Responsible Development (WARD), formed in 2012 to address plans for the United Methodist Children’s Home property, is the largest citizens’ group dedicated to responsible development in Worthington. We urge a YES vote for Issue 38.

WARD views Issue 38 as increasing the chances for a favorable outcome in the development of the UMCH property, and as an act of good government for the long term. Passage of Issue 38 will restore

a balance in the relationship among citizens, city government, and developers with regard to development decisions that impact the entire community.

That such a balance has been lacking has been amply demonstrated. For example, WARD conducted a survey in early 2013, completed by 758 Worthington residents, with 80% indicating that they were opposed to 3-4 story apartments at the UMCH site. Yet two years later, after countless discussions and issuance of formal position statements, Lifestyle Communities presented a plan that

included 350 apartments in four-story buildings. Clearly, this developer did not listen.

Issue 38 would not create any new powers for citizens, but it does extend a traditional American right. It will give us a realistic chance to pursue referendum and vote on whether to overturn rezoning ordinances regarding large and potentially intrusive development projects, not small business startups, which are judged to be potentially damaging to the broader interests of the community.

With passage of Issue 38, developers

would know that the citizens of Worthington have reasonable recourse against irresponsible plans. Developers and city leaders would thus be strongly motivated to conduct due diligence and take seriously public opinion before submitting or approving a rezoning request. In this way, Issue 38 would facilitate, rather than hamper, the process of responsible development and, ultimately, preserve our best economic interests.

Tom Hamer, WARD Planning Group

Worthington Alliance for Responsible Development Endorses Issue 38

see PROCESS page 8

October 27, 2015

One property that will likely be affected by Issue 38, if passed, is the UMCH property, located across High Street from city hall, is owned and operated by the United Method Children’s Home Board of Directors. This is a non-profit group chaired by David Fisher.

Like all land in Worthington, the City dedicates the zoning regulations on this property. Under the current zoning this property is divided into three sections, but largely is “special-institutional’ (S-1) zoning. A smaller section is zoned as “institutions and office” (C-3). Within the C-3 section are two small parcels that are zoned for “community commercial” (C-2), which would enable a business to construct a retail store. All plans would go in front of the Municipal Planning Commission and the Architecture Review Board to meet Worthington building guidelines for materials used and aesthetics.

In June, Lifestyle Communities (LC) presented a UMCH development proposal to the community to gain feedback about the 3-story and 4-story residential buildings and commercial buildings. At the June meeting, UMCH Board Chair

David Fisher represented LC as their spokesperson and zoning attorney.

UMCH Planning Process

Even though the city does not own the property, city officials were aware of UMCH Board’s intention to sell the property, and knew it would have a large impact on the entire community. As a result, the City hired MKSK Consultants to conduct a site evaluation and public engagement process to determine the most appropriate use of the property for any future development.

MKSK hosted a series public meetings, forums, and surveys with Worthington residents, business owners, and young professionals. After several months of public input, they determined what public input was considered valid in light of recent regional studies conducted by Arthur C. Nelson and Insight 2050 showing that the Columbus region is growing. The studies also go in to detail about young population housing trends as well as Baby Boomer housing trends.

Based on the “best planning practices and development trends, as well as

economic realities of future development of the site,” MKSK proposed an update to the Worthington Comprehensive Plan, which City Council approved.

The Comprehensive Plan update states “mix of uses should contain a range of residential types together with commercial office and neighborhood retail uses integrated with contributing and shared green space and amenities.” The Comprehensive Plan leaves room for interpretation and does not specifically outline what those mix uses should be. The following sentence in the Comprehensive Plan states “any proposed design must be sensitive to the neighbors adjacent to the UMCH site.”

During the public input process, an online feedback page was available for public comment on the city’s Web page. In total, there were 439 public comments. Of these. three comments were implemented into the final Comprehensive Plan update. The other 436 comments did not meet the criteria of the Arthur C. Nelson study, and were not incorporated into the update.

Of the 439 comments, dozens suggested different types of developments built by different companies. No other

developer has approached the city with a proposal for the UMCH, even though it is speculated that several developers have approached the UMCH Board to inquire about purchasing the property.

Community Reaction

Worthington Alliance for Responsible Development (WARD), has been involved throughout the entire process with questions, concerns, and direction for MKSK and any potential developer, including Lifestyles.

At the May 18 City Council meeting, WARD spokesman Tom Hamer expressed concerns that the LC proposed development “process is moving too fast and without proper public participation… we are beginning to wonder if, after the hundreds of hours we have devoted to this issue, we are still being taken seriously.”

Since public input was not more integrated in the MKSK planning process outcome, WARD requested that Council provide assurances to the community

UMCH is One Property Impacted by Issue 38

Election Will Determine City’s Future To the Editor:

This election comes down to answering two simple questions: 1) Who should our city government serve, and 2) What do you want our city to look like? Our city was built on a foundation of Representative Government. It’s why our ancestors crossed the ocean, and what Worthington’s Founders established after crossing the mountains. Yet when the people elected to represent you place their own ideas and agenda ahead of those of the residents, the system breaks down.

Since 2005, Council’s “Vision” has dismissed the classic single-family home that comprises our strong neighborhoods in favor of high-density, mixed use development. The Comprehensive Plan is unmistakable on this point:

• “Adding traditional single-family residential development is not encouraged,” and “It is important

to note that the City does not need additional single-family detached neighborhoods.”

The Plan is also cavalier in its willingness to disrupt the character of adjacent neighborhoods, and not just with respect to development at UMCH. Consider this:

• Regarding the Harding property, “Multiple street connections are a requirement for this site. At a minimum, a public connection made to Indianola Avenue is critical.” (Colonial Hills residents, take note!)

I have walked our streets from June to the present talking with you, my neighbors. I have learned that a significant majority of you are saying the city’s vision is not what you want. Dumping traffic from high-rise, high-density development on to Evening St., Indianola, Longfellow or New England Ave. threatens our neighborhoods and our community as a whole. Streets that are now safe walkways for your children’s trip to

and from school or a pleasant evening stroll could become commuting thoroughfares. A call for the widening of streets – even through the Village Green - could leave our neighborhoods and the very character and feel of Worthington permanently damaged.

If you haven’t studied the Comprehensive Plan or sat through the “Visioning UMCH” meetings over the last couple of years, it’s easy to be complacent about this threat to our community. City Council has many areas identified as potential “development opportunities” throughout Worthington, but has done nothing to take into account the impact on traffic, crowded schools that already have lotteries in place, water run-off, and a host of challenges affecting those of us who live here now. Ask yourself, are developers and people who might live here someday (provided we change who we are to suit them) more important than you who are invested in this

community right now and the homes and neighborhoods you love?

Council today seems to value high density above our traditional community values. When questioned, their defensive responses border on arrogance. They dismiss residents’ input and appear too vain to concede that their vision is wildly unpopular. And so they keep pushing, dividing, and using evasive words to cloak their real agenda. You can change this with the message you send with your vote. Elect Doug Foust, Doug Smith and Sean Demaree, and join me in voting “Yes on 38” to take the future of Worthington back into your own hands. To do so is truly an act of good governance.

Doug FoustCandidate for Worthington City

Council

May 22, 2008 :: 17 of Iyyar, 5768 :: 3

Celebrating 5 Years of Award-Winning Journalism in Central Ohio www.thenewstandard.com

October 27, 2015

Hilliard Joins Worthington in Strengthening the Right of Re-Zoning ReferendumsWorthington leads the way, Hilliard follows suit; talks with residents in Powell and Upper Arlington

To the Editor:

As readers of the Dispatch may be aware, on August 24, the Hilliard City Council passed legislation to change zoning and allow apartments to be built on an extension of Trueman Blvd, north of Davidson. In addition, the City Council approved TIF financing which diverts tax money that is intended to go to the Hilliard City School District and Norwich Township (and other agencies with voted millage) in order to pay the developer to build the infrastructure necessary for these apartments. On that same night

the City Council took an additional bold step of passing both of these ordinances by emergency legislation. One wonders what looming disaster could necessitate emergency passage of rezoning for apartment construction.

This emergency status denied the voters the opportunity to have a voice at the ballot in the form of a referendum. I, and many others, are concerned with City Council’s ability to use “emergency” in order to make permanent decisions that affect our community forever. Accordingly, we are organizing a charter amendment initiative, Keep Hilliard

Beautiful, which would provide citizens 60 days instead of 30 to organize a referendum, and importantly, prohibit the use of emergency status by Council in zoning decisions.

We are aware that we are not alone in this type of struggle with developers and a complicit City Council. In Worthington, citizens have succeeded in placing on the ballot this November a similar charter amendment (Issue 38). The organizers of this initiative should be commended for their foresight. Issue 38, if passed, will give the citizens of Worthington a stronger voice and prevent them from suffering

the sort of irreversible damage to their community that has occurred in Hilliard, when the City Council does not value the voice of the citizens. I encourage my friends in Worthington to vote “yes” on Issue 38.

We hope and expect that other communities will take note of what we are doing, and if it serves the purposes of residents in their communities, that they will begin to take action to protect their property and neighborhoods.

Andy TeaterHilliard City School Board Member

Everyone Benefits from Responsible DevelopmentIssue 38 opponents use the phrase

“keep Worthington working.” They claim that Worthington already has an effective process in place that uses resident feedback for a final outcome that works for all parties involved. The opponents also claim that Issue 38 will hurt economic development.

This opposition is predicated on three assumptions:

1. Residents pay attention to city commission, board, and council agendas and decisions at all times.

2. Future flow of zoning law changes will be consistent with the past flow of zoning law changes.

3. The city cannot bring in additional income tax revenue without zoning law changes.

Assumption 1: Residents pay attention to city commission, board, and council agendas and decisions at all times.

When did you last read the City Council minutes? When did you last look at a Municipal Planning Commission agenda? When did you last attend an Architecture Review Board meeting?

Very few city residents are truly informed. Few people attend the commission, board, and council meetings. In fact, it is not uncommon to have a council meeting with no residents attending. And, while the entire process for zoning law changes is public, many residents do not know what developments are being planned until it is too late. Issue 38 will enable more meaningful involvement from residents.

Furthermore, it is common knowledge on Council that residents’ comments are to be heard but not necessarily incorporated in any way. Since 2014, this practice was demonstrated at least twice. One example is the United Methodist Children’s Home. Three out of 439

comments were incorporated.

Assumption 2: The future flow of zoning law changes will be consistent with the past flow of zoning law changes.

Issue 38 opponents are not

considering the zoning map. Worthington’s zoning map was created in 1971 to sustain the city financially for up to 15,000 residents.

There is a clear difference in vision among City Council, city staff and city ‘planning consultants.’ Their vision is to change the zoning map and the zoning laws aggressively to allow more developments that will not be conducive to the city’s financial sustainability. This vision is based on development trends and high-density housing trends identified in studies like the Arthur C. Nelson report, which is coveted by planning consultants.

This vision can be found in the Worthington Comprehensive Plan and in city staff documents.

Council has approved more zoning map changes in the past two years than in the previous 12 years combined. There are at least three large properties that will likely be re-zoned in 2016 (United Methodist Children’s Home, E. Wilson Bridge, and Stafford Village). You can start to see the zoning map change drastically.

I have voted in favor of all but one re-zoning development because those projects were done responsibly and they integrated Worthington’s character. The community favored these changes. Responsible re-zoning development can occur as long as there is community input at every stage of the planning process, including once the zoning change is approved. By the time the news of a zoning change reaches the general public, it might be four to 11 days after the zoning change was approved by Council. Residents

who are until then unaware of the change would have about 10 days to obtain approximately 1,000 signatures for referendum. Issue 38 would allow the public more time to get involved.

Assumption 3: The city cannot bring in additional income tax revenue without zoning law changes.

Currently, there are 1,019 non-

residential parcels in Worthington where developers can re-develop without re-zoning or changing the zoning law.

In recent months, two companies have committed to growing their businesses in Worthington without re-zoning. Trivium and FC Bank will collectively generate more than $14 million in annual taxable payroll, which will be substantial revenue for the city. This type of business is non-controversial, good for Worthington’s budget, and does not require changing our zoning map or our character.

From 2007 to 2014, Worthington saw a total NET growth of 900 jobs. There were a total of six re-zoned properties, which accounted for 0% of that growth and 0% of the income tax revenue in that period. City staff has done a great job building and growing businesses in Worthington that do not require zoning law changes.

The inherent impact of Issue 38 will prompt re-zoning development managers to talk to the community and residents prior to requesting a zoning change. If the developer feels that the community would not support their proposed use, then they can revise the proposal.

To this point, it is important to know how I came to this conclusion. Since 2001, there have been 16 developers requesting zoning changes that would have been impacted by Issue 38. I contacted each of these 16 developers

(totaling 28 land parcels) and was able to talk to 11 developers directly. All 11 said there would have been no difference in the outcome of the development if they were required to wait 60 days instead of 20 days. Most of them said it would have prompted them to communicate more with the community to make sure the project was worthwhile before requesting the change.

The developers were all project managers at the time of their respective re-zoning change. They include the developer leads for CF Bank, Fresh Thyme, UDF, Linworth Crossing, Verizon Retail, Holiday Inn, Linworth Baptist Church, WODA group, and three others in confidence.

As owner of a media and market research company, I can tell you that this information is consistent with standard business practices. Responsible companies will find a location that makes sense to them based on target market, demographics, and brand identity. Regardless of the waiting period, Worthington is a desirable location for businesses.

If your vision for Worthington’s future is to maintain the unique, family-friendly character, then look to your representatives on Council. Many of them do not share that vision. In a democracy, citizens can elect their representatives. However, not all members of Council have been elected in a contested election.

My vision is to protect Worthington’s family-friendly character while growing Worthington-based businesses. Re-zoning and zoning law changes should be made carefully and with proactive community input.

Protect Worthington’s character. Keep Worthington’s zoning map working. Vote yes on Issue 38.

Doug SmithMember Worthington City Council

4 :: 17 of Iyyar, 5768 :: May 22, 2008

www.thenewstandard.com The New Standard

Columbus & Ohio4 October 27, 2015

City of Worthington 1 www.worthington.org

On November 3, 2015, Worthington voters will decide on a proposed change to the City’s Charter regarding zoning laws. The City of Worthington wants to make residents aware of the facts surrounding this issue.

The proposed change to the City Charter was submitted by petition to the City by a citizens group wishing to lengthen the number of days from 20 to 60 before a change in the City zoning code or re-zoning of a property goes into effect.

The official ballot language for the proposed Charter amendment reads: Shall the proposed charter amendment to enact Section 1.04, as set forth in the initiative petition by the citizens of the City of Worthington, to provide that the power of referendum may be exercised during the 60 days after the publication of the adoption of an ordinance or other measure amending the zoning code or changing the zoning of property; and to require that such ordinances and measures shall not take effect until 60 days after publication and to preclude the passage of such ordinances or other measures by emergency, be adopted? Yes or No

If approved, the amendment would: 1. Provide for a 60-day waiting period from the date of publication for all ordinances that: a. Amend the City’s zoning code b. Change the zoning for any property within the City.2. Prohibit either of those two types of ordinances from being passed on an emergency basis.

If not approved:The 20-day waiting period currently provided for in the City Charter remains. This 20-day waiting period has been included in the Charter since its inception in 1956. All other central Ohio communities require a 30-day waiting period.

What would a change mean? The amendment would increase the waiting-period from 20 to 60 days for all rezoning applications for both large and small-scale developments.

(Issue 38, continued Page 2)

The City Charter is the equivalent of Worthington’s local constitution. It provides the framework for how the city is organized and governed.

Village TalksTHE OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THE CITY OF WORTHINGTON

Fall 2015 Issue

Issue 38Worthington’s Zoning Laws - What you Need to Know

Political Sign Regulations With the election season upon us, the City of Worthington is reminding residents of the regulations relating to the placement of political signs in the City of Worthington. Worthington Ordinances require that political signs be placed on private property outside of the public right-of-way. In typical neighborhoods, the right-of-way line is located one (1) foot behind the public sidewalk. In non-typical locations the right-of-way line can be identified on the Worthington GIS mapping system accessed through the City of Worthington website at worthington.org.

City zoning enforcement staff will be making regular surveys during the election season. If signs are found in the right-of-way that appear to be related to a residential

property, the sign will be relocated on to the property out of the right-of-way with a message attached. If signs are found in the right-of-way that are not related to a residential property or are in front of public property, the signs will be removed. Removed signs will be stored at the Department of Planning & Building, 374 Highland Avenue and will be available for pickup during business hours, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday.

City Ordinance requires political signs be removed entirely within one week after the general or special election. For more information, please contact the Department of Planning & Building at (614) 431-2424.

This section pertains to the existing charter language and is not subject to the Issue 38 amendment. Issue 38 will not impact fences, paving roads, air conditioners or anything listed in the highlighted area. It only applies to zoning law changes and zoning map changes approved by Council

Issue 38 opponents, including one member of City Council, admitted publicly they were incorrect in their understanding of Issue 38 language.

The amendment has nothing to do with applications. It only applies to zoning law changes approved by Council.

The City Law Director states: “The city interprets Issue 38 at face value and would not apply the charter amendment to anything other than zoning changes: change in the zoning map or changing the zoning definitions. The city would not apply the charter amendment to variances or any other administrative acts.”

The city uses a variety of economic development strategies, including tax incentives, to bring new businesses into Worthington as well as grow businesses already in Worthington. Nearly all of these businesses located in Worthington without the need to re-zone land. From 2007 to 2014 Worthington saw a total NET growth of 900 jobs. Re-zoned properties accounted for 0% of that growth and 0% of the income tax revenue in that period.

Worthington (pop. 14,000) has the largest operating budget of any like-size community in central Ohio. Pataskala (pop. 18,000) has the next largest budget at $23.4 million.

Of the 930 cities in Ohio with population less than 18,000, Worthington has the second largest operating budget.

For businesses requiring re-zoning, a waiting period can be used to develop and marketing plan, finalize their business plan, meet with community leaders, file financial paperwork, file legal paperwork, and more. When operating a business, there is always something to do while waiting to open.

Taxpayer-Funded ‘Village Talks’ Omits Basic Information about Issue 38The city newsletter, Village Talks, is being

mailed to every Worthington household this month with information about Issue 38.

It is important to note that the language within the newsletter does not accurately reflect the language of Issue 38.

“The focus of Issue 38 is the right of citizen referendum, though this central fact is omitted from the newsletter’s description of the amendment. Inaccurate language describing the issue was previously submitted by the City to Ohio’s Secretary of State office for use as ballot language. The City’s language was challenged by the Keep Worthington Beautiful campaign as a misrepresentation of the amendment,

because it omitted any mention of the right of referendum. The Secretary of State’s office then replaced the city’s language with that provided by Keep Worthington Beautiful.

The language of Issue 38 was drafted by a leading Ohio elections attorney, and is narrowly focused on zoning-related legislation.

Above are highlighted segments in Village Talks that do not accurately convey the focused impact of Issue 38. The colored boxes explain details about the langauge used. Here is the actual language approved for the November ballot (Issue 38). The final part of the language is required technical language.

SECTION 1.04 REFERENDUM AND EFFECTIVE DATE ON ZONING ORDINANCES OR OTHER ZONING MEASURES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, the power of referendum on any ordinance or other measure passed by the Council amending the City’s zoning code or changing the zoning for any property in the City may be exercised in the manner provided by the laws of the State of Ohio except that the petition may be filed upon passage of any ordinance or other measure by Council and within sixty (60) days following publication in order to afford an opportunity during that period for the filing of referendum petitions thereon.

(B) Notwithstanding any other

provision of this Charter, no ordinance or other measure passed by the Council amending the City’s zoning code or changing zoning for any property in the City shall go into effect until sixty (60) days following publication in order to afford an opportunity during that period for the filing of referendum petitions thereon; nor shall any such ordinance or measure be passed on an emergency basis.

SECTION 10.07 WHEN CHARTER AMENDMENTS TAKE EFFECT.

Amendments to this Charter shall be voted upon at a Regular Municipal Election held on November 3, 2015, and if approved by the electorate, shall become effective as of such date.

Harding Hospital Property

Stafford Village Senior Housing

Linworth

Rd

Hun

tley

Rd

Hig

hSt

Even

ing

St

Ole

ntan

gyR

iver

Rd

Sinc

lair

Rd

Lincoln Ave E

Snouffer Rd

Har

tford

St

North St E

Park Blvd

Hard Rd

Worthin

gton-G

alena

Rd

Rie

ber S

t

Tucker Dr

Granville Rd W

Schrock Rd

Granville Rd E

South St E

Oxf

ord

St

Wilson Bridge Rd W

Wilson Bridge Rd E

Caren Ave

Dublin-Granville Rd W

Mor

ning

St

South St W

IndianolaAve

Crandall Dr

Highland Ave

Longfellow Ave

Prop

rieto

rsR

d

Colonial Ave

Selby Blvd E

Halligan Ave

Medick Way

Mas

efie

ldSt

Ando

ver S

t

Greenglade Ave

Abbot Ave

Kenbrook Dr

Selby Blvd S

Highgate Ave

Hayhurst St

Sanc

usBl

vd

Selby Blvd N

Larrimer Ave

Pittsfield Dr

New England Ave E

Lambourne Ave

New England Ave W

Southington Av W

Nor

thla

ndR

d

Ping

ree

Dr

Collins Dr

Whitney Ave

Riley Ave

Godow

n Rd

LinworthRd

E

Clearview Ave E

Heischman Ave

Pinney Dr

Loveman Ave

Fost

erAv

e

Wilson Dr

Dov

erC

t

Plesenton Dr

Stafford Ave E

Riverglen Dr W

Ridgedale Dr N

North St W

Bryant Ave

Dublin-Granville Rd E

Gre

enw

ich

St

Poe Ave

Clayton Dr

Perry

Dr

Alro

joSt

Flor

aVi

llaD

r

Chaucer Ct

Orchard Dr

Selby Blvd W

Thor

neSt

Bere

ndSt

Guy

erSt

Howard Ave

Farrington Dr

Wes

tvie

wD

r

Hennessey Ave

Franklin Ave

Haymore Ave N

Old Wilson Bridge Rd

Lincoln Ave W

Northigh Dr

Alloway

St W

Lakeview Plaza Blvd

Park Overlook Dr

Stafford Ave W

Alloway

St E

Weydon Rd

Dow

nsSt

Middlebury Dr

Olentangy

Bl

Sinsbury Dr N

Riverglen Dr E

Stanton Ave W

Mar

kwoo

dSt

SeaburyD

r

Rid

geda

leD

r E

Highland

Pl

Gra

nby

St

Blandford Ave

StentenSt

Schreiner St E

Winter Dr

East

view

Dr

Short St

BoydD

r

Haymore Ave S

Frontenac Pl

Gris

wol

dSt

Colburn Ct

Lans

down

eSt

Melbourne Pl

Stevenson Ave

Olen Dr

LakeRidge Rd

Beechview Dr S

Franklin Ct

Beechview Dr N

Granville Sq

McG

reeg

orSt

Greenbrier Ct

Halliga

n AveE

Hardy Way

LakesideC

ir W

McCoy Ave

Ravine

Cir

Wes

tbro

okPl

Terra Ct

Emco

Pl

Bellb

rook

Pl

Clearview Ave W

Perry

Pl

Roc

kW

oods

Pl

Gre

enw

ich

St

Hig

hSt

Hig

hSt

Mor

ning

St

Stafford Ave E

Prop

rieto

rsR

d

Ando

ver S

t

Hig

hSt

Stafford Ave E

ZONING MAPCITY OF WORTHINGTON, OHIO

µ

This is a reproducable version of the official zoning maplocated at the City of Worthington Municiple Building, 6550 N High St.

Oxf

ord

St

North St E

South St E

Wilson Dr

North St W

South St W

Howard Ave

Crandall D r

Stafford Ave EStafford Ave W

Short St

New England Ave E

Oxf

ord

Ct

New England Ave W

Glen D r

Greenbrier Ct

Har

tford

St

Kilb

ourn

eD

r

Clearview Ave WHartford Ct

Orchard Dr

Har

tford

StH

artfo

rdSt

Oxf

ord

St

Har

tford

St

Orchard Dr

Hig

hSt

Dublin-Granville Rd EDublin-Granville Rd W

Hig

hSt

S-1

R-10

R-10R-10

S-1

R-10R-10

R-10R-10

R-10

SC

S-1

SC

C-3

R-10

S-1R-10

R-10

R-10

C-5

C-2

C-5

R-10

C-5

R-10

R-10

S-1

R-10 C-3

C-3

C-2

C-3

AR-4.5

R-10

C-3

R-10

R-10

R-10

R-10

C-3

R-10

C-5

R-10

R-10

AR-4.5

C-1

AR-4.5

R-10

R-10

C-3

R-10R-10

R-10C-3

AR-4.5

C-3

S-1

PUD 02-14

R-10

C-3

AR-4.5

R-10

C-1C-1

C-4

AR-4.5

C-4

AR-4.5

C-1

R-10

AR-4.5

AR-4.5

C-3

AR-4.5

C-5

C-5

R-10C-5

PUD 03-14

C-3

AR-4.5

C-3

C-3

C-3

AR-4.5

R-10

R-6.5

Inset Map

µ

800 0 800400 Feet

300 0 300150 Feet

Last Updated: 5/13/2015 By: RJWDate Produced: 6/9/2015

worthington.org

Zoning Districts

OPEN AREA

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

Flood Plain

Special

Very Low Density Residential

Low Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

One and Two Family Residence

Low Density Apartment Residence

Neighborhood Commercial

Community Shopping Center

Institutions and Offices

Highway and Automotive Services

Central Commercial

Restricted Industrial: Research and Offices

General Industrial

Planned Unit District

Medium Density Apartment Residence

Senior Citizen

Veterans Memorial

PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT

F-1

S-1

R-16

R-10

R-7.5

R-6.5

AR-4.5

AR-3

SC

C-1

C-2

C-3

C-4

C-5

I-1

I-2

VM

PUD

October 27, 2015 5

Worthington’s Zoning Map Protects Worthington’s CharacterWorthington’s population grew from

2,000 to 15,000 residents between the 1950’s and 1960’s. In 1971, city leaders created the zoning map and zoning laws to financially sustain Worthington’s 15,000-resident population. From 1971 to 1981 there were 63 zoning changes 29 to deal with the new population. Of those, 29 were required by law due to annexation. There are least known re-zoning developments in planning process, which will likely be presented to Council in 2016. These likely re-zoning developments are the UMCH property, E. Wilson Bridge Rd., and the current Stafford Village Senior Housing

in Old Worthington near the library. Since 1981, there have been 44 re-

zoning requests that were not required by law. Of those, 16 zoning changes were since 2001. There have been more zoning map changes than in the past two years than the previous 12 years combined. According to studies like the Arthur Nelson report, developments are currently trending toward high-density residential complexes to handle the projected growth in central Ohio of 600,000 additional residents by 2050. However, the 1971 zoning map was created to handle 15,000 residents. Since Worthington is land-locked, the

only way that Worthington’s residential population can grow is through re-zoning properties to allow higher-density apartments and condos. If the population grows to more than 15,000 residents, it will impact the city’s infrastructure and will drain the city’s financial resources since residential properties do not generate income tax revenue, the city’s main revenue source.

As a result of residential-focused development, it is common practice for cities to negotiate with developers to incorporate some commercial development alongside the residential

development to make up for lost city revenues due to the financial drain from residential properties. Developers who accommodate this negotiation place residential units closer together and increase the height of

Worthington’s current top 10 employers never needed re-zoning. Recently, two large companies moved to Worthington, and will provide a collective $14 million in taxable payroll, which will provide substantial income tax revenue to the city. Neither of these companies needed re-zoning to locate in Worthington.

Citations: City of Worthington

Planning and Building Department and Finance Department, worthington.org

Worthington Comprehensive Plan

Harding Hospital PropertyIdentified in the Worthington Comprehensive Plan as a highly-desired future development requiring re-zoning.

Impact: Open Indianola Ave. into Colonial Hills for through-way access to 161.

Traffic increase on 161.

High-density apartments

Large commercial

Large “big box” retail

School redistricting

UMCH PropertyCurrently in planning process. Identified in the Worthington Comprehensive Plan as a highly-desired future development requiring re-zoning.

Impact: Traffic increase on High St. and Evening St. and Larrimer

Water run off

High-density apartments

Large commercial

School redistricting

Stafford Village Senior HousingCurrently in planning process to build 3-story high-density senior housing.

Impact: Traffic increase near library. Demolish historic homes in Historic District

Identified by developers as desired development for high-density apartments.

Impact: Traffic increase on Olentangy River Rd. and 161School redistricting

Planned Zoning Changes and Targeted SitesE. Wilson Bridge RdCurrently in planning process to change zoning for high-density residential, large commercial, and small commercial

Impact: School redeistricting and Traffic increase on Wilson Bridge Rd. and High St.

Round Red Marking Indicates Development Focus

PlesentonPlesenton Dr.

UMCH PropertyUMCH Property

E. Wilson Bridge Rd.E. Wilson Bridge Rd.

6 October 27, 2015

1. It will cripple the local economy.The vast majority of business in Worthington is carried out on property already zoned

commercial (there are 1,019 non-residential parcels in Worthington), and would not be affected by Issue 38.

From 2007-2014 there were just six rezoning requests. For those businesses that want to locate in Worthington that are seeking to change our zoning map, adding 40 days to the effective date of a rezoning ordinance would not be a material deterrent.

Here’s why we say that: from 2001 through 2014, there were sixteen developers that obtained a property rezoning in Worthington (on a total of 28 parcels). Councilman Doug Smith contacted these developers in order to directly ask them whether an additional 40 days would have affected their decision to locate in Worthington. He was able to directly reach eleven of the developers, and every one of them said they wanted to locate here because our city matched their target demographic and the additional time would not have made any difference in their decision.

More basically, Issue 38 will help us to maintain and enhance the distinctive character of Worthington, which is the underlying economic strength of our city. What makes Worthington most attractive to visitors, customers, and businesses alike is an environment and experience that is authentic and unique. Businesses want to locate in an environment that is appealing to clients, employees, and owners. Because of this, changing the zoning map warrants particular care because of the effective permanence of the decisions being made. When it comes to irreversible change to real property it is wise to proceed thoughtfully and prudently.

2. It is broadly and ambiguously written, so it will have all kinds of unintended bad effects.

Issue 38 was carefully drafted by one of Ohio’s leading election lawyers, Donald J. McTigue, former Chief Elections Counsel to the Ohio Secretary of State and former Counsel to the Ohio Elections Commission. McTigue has over thirty years experience in election law, and has been counsel for numerous referendums and initiatives. The language of Issue 38 is clear, succinct, and direct to its purpose.

3. It’s only about UMCH - other parts of our city have nothing to worry about.

The current trend among developers is to pack as many apartments and housing in to as little space as possible, meaning that many parcels in Worthington could be vulnerable to intrusive development—if our Council complies with developers and the residents have no viable recourse. Here is a short list of property sites (there are no doubt more) that developers have expressed interest in redeveloping, or are actively engaged in planning a high-density project.

UMCH: mixed-use, high-density, current proposal of 571 units, with streets egressing to Evening Street, Larrimer Avenue, and High Street. Harding Hospital property: prime property slated (in the city’s 2005 Comprehensive Plan) for high-density, mixed use development, with the opening of Indianola Ave. and possibly East New England Avenue, as commuting routes.East Stafford Avenue: currently patio homes and single family residences, currently in planning stage for multi-story, high density senior housing. Located in the Historic District.Plesenton Drive: identified as high-density apartment/condominium project, to be located on two plots currently zoned low-density residential, near Jeffers Mound (Hopewell earthwork) affecting not only immediate area, but traffic on Olentangy and Dublin Granville Rd.Park Boulevard, at the intersection with Hartford: a church property nestled near Park, presents an attractive sight for developers seeking to build a compact

Issue 38 applies not only to UMCH, and not only to today, but is a forward-thinking action that will apply to present and future development pressures, and present and future councils. It will provide a legacy of good governance, something we can be proud of for its positive effect on our community.

4. If it passes, we won’t be able to pave our streets, pick up trash, plow our roads, buy firetrucks, move an air-conditioner, sell our homes, put a new sign on business, build a fence, or get a building permit in a timely fashion.

This fiction - or cluster of fictions - has been asserted by members of the opposition from the very beginning. What these claims have in common is that they all falsely suggest that simple administrative acts, or variances of city code, would be subject to referendum because of Issue 38. This is false. Under Ohio law, ONLY legislation is subject to referendum, NOT variances, building permits, or other administrative acts commonly sought by homeowners and businesses.

The Worthington City Attorney, Pamela Fox, has stated: “The city interprets Issue 38 at face value and would not apply the charter amendment to anything other than zoning changes: change in the zoning map or changing the zoning definitions. The city would not apply the charter amendment to variances or any other administrative acts.”

In sum, all of the excellent city services we enjoy will continue without interruption. The processes and timetable for permits commonly sought by both homeowners and business owners will remain unchanged.

•

•

•

•

•

5. The current “process” works, so who needs Issue 38?Here is an example of how well the process is working for Worthington residents.

The members of the Worthington Alliance for Responsible Development (WARD) have spent several years and countless hours working through “the process” with city council, city staff, developers, and consultants, seeking to achieve a reasonable development at UMCH. As a simple, quantifiable example of how the process has worked for them, they explain:

”WARD conducted a survey in early 2013, completed by 758 Worthington residents, with 80% indicating that they were opposed to 3-4 story apartments at the UMCH site. Yet two years later, after countless discussions and issuance of formal position statements, Lifestyles Communities presented a plan that included 350 apartments in four-story buildings. Clearly, this developer did not listen.”

And, we would add, neither did our city council and staff that were facilitating this process. To this point, our city hired MKSK, a local consulting firm, to facilitate a public process (beginning in late 2013) of rewriting the UMCH portion of the Comprehensive Plan. During multiple meetings, attended by hundreds of Worthington residents, a total of 439 comments/suggestions were made to the facilitators. Out of these 439 public remarks, only THREE were actually incorporated in to the revised comprehensive plan. Three out of four hundred thirty nine.

Having thus experienced the city’s process, WARD urges a YES vote on Issue 38.“WARD views Issue 38 as increasing the chances for a favorable outcome in the

development of the UMCH property, and as an act of good government for the long term. Passage of Issue 38 will restore a balance in the relationship among citizens, city government, and developers with regard to development decisions that impact the entire community. That such a balance has been lacking has been amply demonstrated.”

6. It will hurt city finances, resulting in raised taxes.This fiction ignores the fact that

1) Issue 38 will affect few business, just those seeking rezoning legislation, and2) Issue 38 will encourage responsible development that is compatible with both our neighborhoods and the current economic mix of businesses.

Regarding point 1, let’s put the scope of rezoning in perspective. From 2007 to 2014 Worthington saw a total NET growth of 900 jobs. There were a total of six re-zoned properties, which accounted for 0% of that growth and 0% of the income tax revenue in that period. City staff has done a great job building and growing businesses in Worthington that do not require zoning law changes on the 1,019 non-residential parcels in Worthington where developers can re-develop without re-zoning or changing the zoning law.

Regarding point 2, what will, or would, hurt our city’s long-term economic interests is to follow a me-too business plan, allowing high-density developments like Lifestyles to degrade our city’s distinctive character. In the life of a business, and a community, having something to offer that is unique and authentic is the way to preserve value and long-term prosperity. We can do that by attracting responsible development, such as Trivium and CF Bank, neither of which required rezoning, and which will generate substantial city revenue through a combined annual taxable payroll of $14 million+. Worthington’s current top 10 employers never needed re-zoning.

7. It is anti-development.No, Issue 38 is for responsible development, which is more likely achieved when

the residents of Worthington have a strong voice, with meaningful impact, upon the decision-making process of our city government. We don’t need to sacrifice what we love about Worthington to remain economically vibrant. In fact, the two go hand in hand. See also point 2, #6 above.

8. It impinges on property rights.Issue 38 empowers residents and will enhance property rights in the most fundamental

way—by protecting the integrity and character of our neighborhoods. Issue 38 will help to protect your right to not have your home value destroyed by overwhelming and inappropriate development nearby. Issue 38 will help ensure that your quiet neighborhood street, the one your children use to walk to school, will not be turned in to a high-density apartment commuting thoroughfare. These, and more, are basic property rights that are currently at risk here in Worthington, and ones that our initiative seeks to protect.

Issue 38 has nothing to do with a homeowner’s ability to request and receive permits and/or variances for home projects, additions, etc.

9.will kill jobsSee #1 above.

10. It creates excessive, new powers for residents.Issue 38 creates no new powers, only more time to exercise the established right

of referendum on zoning-related legislation, if it is judged to be harmful to the broad interests of the community. All non-zoning legislation will be unaffected by Issue 38. This citizens’ initiative is narrowly focused in scope, but effective in giving residents a stronger say in development decisions through our right of referendum. See #2 above.

Issue 38 Fictions and Facts

7October 27, 2015

11. It will send us in to recessionSee #1 above.

12. 20-30 days is plenty enough time to gather petition signatures!There is a lot more than just signature gathering that needs to happen during this

period. From the time City Council passes and posts the zoning legislation, the clock starts ticking. Citizens need to research the legislation - understand exactly what it does, what building may take place, how property values, traffic patterns, possibly even school enrollment - might be affected.

After such study, a decision needs to be made as to whether the legislation is objectionable. If it is, citizens will then need to assess the advisability and feasibility of launching a referendum effort. If they decide to launch such an effort, an attorney will need to be hired, to draft petition language based on the legislation. The petition language will need to be filed, approved, and paper petitions printed. Volunteers must be recruited, educated, and trained regarding petition signature gathering.

Then and only then can citizens begin knocking on their neighbors’ doors and asking for their signatures - neighbors who may have never previously heard of either the proposed development project or the re-zoning legislation. Currently, approximately 600 valid signatures will need to be submitted, which means 900-1,000 should be gathered to ensure an adequate number of valid signatures.

Residents who are being asked to sign such a petition will similarly need time to do their own research, if they are not already familiar with the issue. They will need time to read about the issue, discuss it with family and neighbors, and make their decisions about whether they wish to sign. It should be noted that not every re-zoning issue is going to have the advantage of years of public awareness, media coverage, etc. that the UMCH property has garnered.Toward the end of the petitioning period, the citizens will need to check and re-check each signature, before submitting them to the Board of Elections for validation.

Under current law, citizens must accomplish all of the above steps within 20 days after legislation is passed by city council and subsequently published. Those who claim that 10 additional days (30 instead of the current 20) for this process would be adequate are not recognizing the robust public discourse that these far-reaching decisions deserve.

13. High density apartments will help city finances.All residential property is a net drain on city finances, and high-density apartments is

the most costly for the city and its taxpayers. The city receives net positive revenue from commercial and industrial activity, which, from a city budget perspective, is what should be emphasized in city development plans, on property already zoned commercial/industrial.

14. We will be outliers (bad for our business reputation)This fiction has several problems with it.First, it suggests that the upfront municipal planning process is of primary importance

in attracting business to Worthington. This is simply not the reality in the business world. Businesses choose to locate in a community like Worthington because this is where their customers are, where the owners and workers want to live, and where they want their brand to be reinforced. In short, where they can make money and enjoy doing it.

Further, this fiction reflects a reluctance to be to be bold about what makes us distinct and attractive. Rather than trying to be like everyone else, Worthington can take a leadership position in protecting our property rights and the neighborhoods we love.

The merits of Issue 38, and its broad-based appeal to other communities, was recently demonstrated by the creation of Keep Hilliard Beautiful, a citizens’ charter amendment initiative with the same basic terms as our Keep Worthington Beautiful: 60 days for right of referendum and no emergency zoning legislation.

15. It will hurt small business.Issue 38 relates only to zoning-related legislation, NOT variances of the zoning

code, or regular commercial activity on property already zoned commercial. To cite one example, House Wine required only a conditional use variance to begin operations, but no legislation. Accordingly, House Wine and any other business seeking to do business as usual in Worthington would not be impacted by Issue 38. The focus of Issue 38 is the rezoning of significant properties that would have a major impact on our neighborhoods, and thus warrant greater time for public dialog and scrutiny.

16. will hurt our emergency services (we won’t be able to buy firetrucks in timely manner)See #4 above.

17. Everything is working just fine - what’s to be concerned about?See #3 and #5 above. Our city is facing heightened development pressure throughout

our city and neighborhoods. High-density developments—at UMCH, Harding Hospital property, Stafford Avenue, Plesenton Boulevard, Park Avenue,, and elsewhere—that would be incompatible and disruptive of our existing neighborhoods, are being proposed or actively planned. These projects, if allowed to proceed without taking due account of the judgment and assessment of the residents, would be harmful to our economy, our city budget, and the well-being of our neighborhoods.

18. It won’t help us with UMCH.While Issue 38 is good public policy for the long term, it will go in to effect

immediately if passed. It will prevent any “emergency” rezoning of UMCH that would eliminate our right of referendum. But more likely, with an enhanced ability to conduct a referendum, the UMCH Board will be motivated to proceed only with developers and proposals compatible with the public interest. In sum, the probability of a positive outcome at UMCH will be greatly enhanced with the passage of Issue 38. See #5 above.

19. It will be bad for our city governmentIssue 38 will improve the health of our body politic. By providing the residents with a

stronger voice, Issue 38 will help to restore balance to our government, and the relations between City Council, staff, and the residents they serve.

20. this won’t stop Lifestyles from developing UMCH, it’s too lateSee #18 above.

21. Issue 38 will scare away developersWorthington’s greatest economic asset is its distinctive character. This is why

businesses want to come here, and this is what Issue 38 will help protect by encouraging responsible development that is compatible with our existing neighborhoods. Our opponents, who insist that the upfront municipal planning process is the determining factor in our competitiveness, don’t seem to get this. See # 1 and #6 above.

22. Keep Worthington Beautiful organizers gathered signatures in just 17 days [it actually took 75], so who needs 60?

From conception to completion of signature gathering, Keep Worthington Beautiful took roughly 75 days, under ideal conditions (summertime, heightened awareness among the public, no absolute deadlines). The formal signature gathering period of a referendum is only the culmination of a lengthy process preceding it. Issue 38 provides residents more time to study a rezoning decision; discuss it with family, friends, and neighbors; assess the planned development’s impact on their streets, schools, neighborhoods, home values; and, if they judge it to be warranted, to pursue a referendum effort through signature gathering on legal petitions. See #12 above. 23. the public is already listened to (so just get involved in the community planning process)See #5 above.

24. City Council tried to compromise with Keep Worthington Beautiful.Here’s testimony from one of Issue 38’s coordinators: “When I sat down with Bonnie Michael, Scott Myers, and Matt Greeson, the first thing

I said was, ‘If you have a proposal for a different means of providing the residents with a strong voice in big development decisions, I’m all ears.’ I was met with blank stares. Nothing. Finally, Councilman Myers said that the process is already working, and that I should consider withdrawing our petitions and instead accept a 30 day referendum period [through a substitute council-sponsored ordinance that would be voted on by the public]. I felt that for me to try to do that would have been a betrayal of the more than 700 residents who signed our petition based on terms of “no emergency zoning legislation and 60 days for a referendum.” I had no moral authority to change a document that 700+ people had signed. But equally important, the 60 day period for referendums is at the very heart of how citizens will gain a stronger voice. So it wasn’t a compromise, it was a capitulation that was being sought. The terms of Issue 38 are simple and to the point and we stand by them.” - David Robinson

See #12 above.

25. the Comprehensive Plan protects us from bad development (so who needs Issue 38)?

See #5 above. Further, the revised Comprehensive Plan for UMCH was written by the consulting firm, MKSK, which has existing commercial relations with numerous development companies, including Lifestyle Communities and its legal counsel, David Fisher. Given the authorship of the revised Comprehensive Plan, it is reasonable to question whether it is truly a “consensus” document, grounded in public input, as the city claims. Supporters of Issue 38 believe it is wise and prudent for the residents to have a safety net if needed, through the exercise of our right of referendum.

26. The city doesn’t own UMCH so we can’t control it anywayYes, UMCH owns the property, but City Council has sole legal authority over any

rezoning of the property. This control over rezoning provides the city with significant leverage over how any given property is redeveloped and who the rezoning benefits. And Issue 38, by giving residents a stronger voice over development decisions that require rezoning, will increase the likelihood of responsible development at the site, compatible with neighboring communities and the city as a whole.

Issue 38 Fictions and Facts

Ohio Issue 1: Ohio Bipartisan Redistricting Commission AmendmentThe Ohio Bipartisan Redistricting

Commission Amendment, Issue 1 is on the November 3, ballot in Ohio as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The measure, upon voter approval, would create a bipartisan redistricting commission, the Ohio Redistricting Commission, to draw state legislative districts. The measure would also establish new requirements for district standards.

The Ohio Redistricting Commission would consist of the following seven members: the Governor, State Auditor, Secretary of State,

one person appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, one person appointed by the legislative leader of the largest political party in the house of which the speaker is not a member, one person appointed by the President of the Ohio Senate and one person appointed by the legislative leader of the largest political party in the senate of which the president is not a member.

While the current system guarantees that one out of five members of the commission are from the minority party,

the proposed system would assure that two out of seven members are from the minority party. In other words, the new amendment would secure 29 percent of the commission seats for minority party members, whereas the current system secures 20 percent of the commission seats for minority party members.

To approve a redistricting plan for 10 years, a bipartisan vote of four members, two from each major political party, would be required. If the commission fails to pass a plan by a bipartisan vote, members would

pass a plan by a simple majority vote of any four members. However, this plan would only last four years.

All legislative districts would be required to be composed of “contiguous territory, and the boundary of each district to be a single nonintersecting continuous line.” They would also be required to be “compact.” The amendment would forbid district plans from favoring or disfavoring a political party.

The amendment would go into effect in 2021, which is when the next redistricting will occur.

8

Ohio Issue 3: Ohio Marijuana LegalizationThe Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative

is an initiated constitutional amendment on the ballot for November 3.

The measure would legalize the limited sale and use of marijuana and create 10 facilities with exclusive commercial rights to grow the drug.

Issue 3 will be accompanied on the ballot by Issue 2, which was added by state lawmakers concerned that the amendment would grant a monopoly to the facilities. If both issues pass, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has stated that Issue 2 would invalidate Issue 3, a claim denied by the amendment’s supporters, who would likely take the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The proposed measure specifies the legal use, cultivation and sale of marijuana in Ohio.

Who could use marijuana?

• Anyone 21 years or older with a license purchased from the Ohio Marijuana Control Commission (MGCE), similar to a fishing license, could use, possess, grow, cultivate and share up to eight ounces of homegrown marijuana and four flowering marijuana plants.

• Anyone 21 years or older (with or without a license) could purchase, possess, transport, use and share up to one ounce of marijuana.

• Anyone with a certified debilitating medical condition could use medicinal marijuana.

What are MGCE facilities?The amendment would create 10

Marijuana Growth, Cultivation and Extraction (MGCE) facilities. These 10 facilities would have exclusive rights to commercial production; it was this aspect of

the amendment that led the Ohio General Assembly to add the competing Issue 2 to the ballot.

The MGCE facilities would be run independently to prevent collusion, as required by the Sherman Antitrust Act. There would be no vertical integration of marijuana business, meaning that those who cultivated the plants could not also sell directly to the public.

Property owners agreed to let the 300 people that each facility expects to employ, unionize and collectively bargain.

Each MGCE facility has at least one primary investor, some of whom are local celebrities:

• Former 98 Degrees singer Nick Lachey• Former Cincinnati Bengals defensive

end Frostee Rucker• Dayton pain specialist Suresh Gupta• WEBN radio host Frank Wood

• Barbara Gould, a philanthropist based in Indian Hill

• University of Cincinnati basketball star Oscar Robertson

• Paul Heldman, former general counsel of The Kroger Co.

• Woody Taft, a descendant of President William Howard Taft

Ian James, the head of the ResponsibleOhio campaign in support of the amendment, required each investor to give $2 million to the campaign to get Issue 3 on the ballot. He also hired real estate agents to find 10 properties capable of industrial indoor marijuana production. Cincinnati financier James Gould played a large role in investor recruiting.

The production properties would be located in Licking, Hamilton, Lorain, Clermont, Lucas, Delaware, Summit, Butler, Franklin, and Stark counties.

October 27, 2015

Irresponsible Development Leads to BubbleTo the Editor:

As a long term resident of Worthington, I strongly support issue 38.

Over the years I have seen the value of having residents and city council work together when it comes to large zoning questions.

Two candidates, Bonnie Michael and Candy Brooks, oppose Issue 38. Their main goal is to increase Worthington’s tax revenue by attracting new businesses and additional population. Currently Worthington is in a very strong financial position with a rainy day fund of $11 million as of September, 2015, and current income surpasses expenses. We have no need to rush any real estate development.

Bonnie Michael spoke with great passion at “Meet the Candidate Night.” A person in an elected position who is blinded by passion can lose sight of representative government. Voting for Issue 38 would help to balance this situation.

I agree that eventually the land currently owned by the UMCH should be developed. With the passage of issue 38 we are more likely to preserve the characteristics we love of Worthington. Worthington residents are smart and well educated. Giving them more time to work on important zoning issues along with the city council will be a blessing to us all.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (August 12, 2015) entitled, “Surge in Commercial Real

Estate Prices Stirs Bubble Worries”, this is a poor time to start a large development project.

“Investors are pushing commercial real-estate prices to record levels in cities around the world, fueling concerns that the global property market is overheating” according to the Wall Street Journal article.

In a few years we could see distressed commercial properties. We may see builders going bankrupt, apartment rents going down and properties not bringing in enough income to be well taken care of. It will be another version of the home-building bubble.

Because of the high price of land available for development, it is impossible for builders to make

money on a low density, high quality project. As a result they are building high density projects.

If city council and the residents of Worthington have the same vision of a quality development, that is what we will get. Currently the cost of the land owned by UMCH is inflated due to the froth in the real estate market. The current building frenzy won’t continue forever. UMCH has owned the High Street parcel since 1913 when it was gifted to them from an estate.

Voting for Issue 38 will make a statement that Worthington residents want quality developments in Worthington.

Sarah Gold

that they will fully consider residents’ concerns.

“The ultimate pitfall from a speeded up process could be a situation where key decisions are already made by the time input from the community is evaluated. In other words, the desire to get the project going would outweigh the need to hear from and value the views of the residents. That would be less than democratic and would be seen by many as a violation of trust,” said Hamer.

School Impact and Taxes

Under the current Lifestyle

Communities proposal, the commercial office space proposed would generate approximately $10 million in annual wages, resulting in the City receiving approximately $250,000 per year in tax revenue to add to their current $30 million annual budget. It is difficult to determine the tax revenue generated from property taxes since nearly all property taxes go to the schools and county services.

Worthington Schools will be impacted under the current Lifestyle proposal. Unfortunately, the impact on the schools will likely affect all schools, because there will likely be some young families moving into any residential development.

According to Vicki Gnezda, Director of Communication at Worthington Schools, “It is premature to discuss the enrollment of specific elementary buildings and how that impacts the school assignments for future residential developments. It is safe to say that we currently have available space in elementary schools throughout the district though we could not guarantee student placement in their nearest school.”

At least one top school official is speculating that any elementary student living on this property will likely be sent to Wilson Hill Elementary School.

Issue 38

The language of Issue 38 extends the waiting period for citizen referendum to petition against irresponsible or unwanted development. If a proposal – not incorporating citizen feedback – is approved by Council, residents will have an additional 40 days (from the current 20-day waiting period) to gather approximately 1,000 signatures.

Further, Issue 38 prevents “emergency” passage of re-zoning laws, which can be used to circumvent citizens’ right of referendum (as happened recently in Hilliard).

PROCESS FROM PAGE 2