Land Use Plan Commission Blog & Facebook Group

The blog for the Bexley Land Use Commission is now live at:
http://bexleyplan.blogspot.com/

Additionally, I've created a Facebook Group for the commission at:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=78192854307

Over the next year, the Bexley Land Use Commission will be discussing land use challenges facing the city, and ways to address those challenges in the form of an actionable land use plan. The mission of the Bexley Land-use Commission is to develop a strategic planning framework and land-use vision for the City of Bexley that protects and enhances our unique community assets by identifying and addressing short and long term planning options and land-use challenges and recommending opportunities for civic improvement and beautification through land-use policies and initiatives.

Trying to communicate the vision behind a Land Use Plan without making it sound like a bunch of overly verbose gobbledygook is very difficult. This is a very exciting opportunity for the community to have a say on where the City is headed over the next 5, 15, 25 years - to identify areas that need change and to form strategies to enact that change.

In addition to traditional community workshops, the commission will be making a strong effort to utilize social networking in the planning process. Please take a minute to join the Facebook group or subscribe to the blog's RSS feed, and when information and ideas are being put out there please contribute and comment on what is being talked about.

New Bexley.org is live!

Thanks to the hard work of the dedicated Bexley Technology Commission, the all new bexley.org is up. Content is still being loaded, but this is a huge step forward for the city in terms of making information easily and quickly accessible to residents.

The old site didn't allow searching, and wasn't even visible to Google. That has all changed, and we also now have the oft-discussed city calendar! Between this and the new online booking system for Bexley Parks and Rec, this has been a busy year for the technology commission, and major kudos to them for all of the hard work and dedication they've put into it. You can see the new site at:

http://www.bexley.org

Money Matters

City council has been engaged in a comprehensive review of Bexley's 2009 budget over the past several months. As economic conditions have declined both locally and nationally, income forecasts for the city have likewise dropped off, and the numbers are seeming to suggest that this year's projected budget deficit will leave the city close to a $0 balance at the end of 2009.

Obviously, this is not good news. Several factors have precipitated the city being in this financial bind. As previously mentioned, there is the economy at large and the resultant decline in income tax revenues. Beyond income tax revenue, the city relies on a mixture of property tax revenues, state funding sources, and estate tax revenues. Property tax revenues are inherently flat and therefore do not meet the needs of naturally inflating costs. State funding for local governments has gradually declined in recent years, and 2009 will certainly be no exception. Estate tax revenues have likewise dissapated as estate planning has become more sophisticated and residency requirements within the State of Ohio have loosened, leading erstwhile Bexley residents to claim residency in other states such as, most prominently, Florida.

Mayor Brennan's administration has been aggressive at trimming the fat out of the budget, resulting in commendable curbs on excess spending. But despite aggressive efforts and a nearly $1 million annual reduction in spending, Bexley still faces annual budget deficits in excess of $1.5 million.

There are two ways to handle this problem - cut spending, or raise revenues. A citizen's advisory panel is currently assessing many of these issues, and advising the city, from a residents' perspective, as to what approach or combination of approaches might be most appropriate.

I am very hesitant to rely on the prospect of increased revenue via a tax increase. I have performed an analysis of Bexley residents' local tax burden when compared to local tax burdens experienced by residents of other comparable local municipalities, and it is my belief that we are already above the average in terms of overall cost to residents. To push this economic disincentive even further threatens the competiveness of our community as an attractive place to live and work.

Instead, I believe that the city needs to acknowledge that we are in need of a paradigm shift - one that focuses on providing necessary services to residents in as efficient a manner as possible, and trimming back or cutting less critical programs and services. This will mean cutting back on some of the more peripheral services that we provide as a city, and it will require some hard decisions to be made at city hall, but I believe that the long term health and viability of the city depends upon it.

Long term, this will also mean being more purposeful in our strategic planning and strategic economic development, and more purposeful in attracting new commercial users to our limited commercial corridors.

What I'm saying is fairly trite, and certainly not revolutionary, but the inertia needed to make these sorts of changes in the context of government cannot be underestimated. It is very easy to talk about cutting spending and making hard decisions, but it is exponentially harder to actually make the necessary changes. Over the next several weeks city council will be wrapping up the 2009 budget, and the result will be very telling. We will either be one step closer to financial stability and moving in the direction of a balanced budget, or we will be continuing our inevitable trajectory towards a negative balance and an environment that is correspondingly tailored towards a tax increase.

Your thoughts are appreciated - what services do you think could be cut - how do you think the city could save money? Do you think that a tax increase is inevitable and/or appropriate? Write me at bkessler@bexley.org with any thoughts or commentary, or comment below.

Tonight's Council Meeting - October 14, 2008

At tonight's council meeting, council will be considering the additional appropriation of $850,000 to cover the difference between the expected bid amount for the police station and the actual bid amount for the police station. All told, this brings the projected police station price tag to north of $7.4 million.

Additionally, it is my understanding that we will be considering the picketing ordinance, which I covered in depth in some earlier blog posts (I mistakenly suggested that we would be voting on this at the last council meeting, but instead it was postponed until we could hold another safety committee meeting to specifically address the issue). This item will be discussed at the 5:30 safety committee meeting. Following a recommendation from the safety committee, it will be voted on during the 7:00 council meeting.

Safety committee meeting will be at 5:30, followed by the finance committee meeting at 6:00 and the general council meeting at 7:00. The meetings will be held at City Hall's council chambers.

September 23rd, 2008 Council Meeting

There are two notable ordinances being voted on at tomorrow's council meeting.  These include:

- Capital University's request for a variance for a property on Mound Street

- The proposed picketing ordinance, banning picketing at private residences

I've already outlined my stance on the picketing issue in a previous post.  I wanted to write briefly re: the Capital University variance request.  There has been a lot of confusion from residents who have noticed indescrepancies between the Southwest Bexley Master Plan (SWBMP) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was drawn up soon after the SWBMP.  These indescrepancies have resulted in confusion regarding what Capital's rights are in terms of future expansion and use of property, and why proposed uses and variance requests such as this seem to conflict with the SWBMP.

I am going to do my part to try to summarize the relationship between these two items, although this is not intended to be a legal opinion or a definitive historical account, but rather my honest and best attempt at deciphering the relationship between these two documents.

The SWBMP was formed to define future land use between Capital University, Trinity Seminary, and the city of Bexley.  It was a document that was formed using public input and negotiation between all parties.  It was not a legally binding document, but rather a master plan that was intended to be the basis for future legally binding documents.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was the legally binding document that served as the follow-up to the Southwest Bexley Master Plan.  It was negotiated between the city, Capital University, and Trinity Seminary soon after the acceptance, by city council, of the SWBMP.  Notably, the MOU does vary in some ways from the SWBMP, in that it allows for Capital's expansion into several parcels that were not identified in the master plan.  One such parcel is the parcel in question - a single family residence just east of the Mound St/Pleasant Ridge intersection that Capital owns and would like to use as an alumni office.  This parcel is explicitly identified in the MOU as a parcel which can be used for 'limited institutional usage', but it does still need to receive a zoning variance from council.

For those of you who had this issue on their radar, I hope this provides some clarification as to how the MOU varies slightly from the SWBMP.  For further information/reading, see the 2003 ordinance that adopted the MOU (odinance 89-03).    

City council will convene at city hall on Tuesday, September 23.  The zoning and development committee meeting will be at 5:30, finance committee at 6:00, and the main council meeting will commence at 7:00.  

Freedom of Speech

An ordinance is currently before council to consider banning picketing in front of private residences. The language of the ordinance is substantively as follows:

“... it is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the private residence or dwelling of any individual in the City of Bexley.”

The language for the ordinance is almost word for word the same as an ordinance from Brookfield, Wisconsin that was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1988. See this article from the New York Times covering the case.

In my mind, there are two issues to consider with this case. Firstly, there is the question of free speech. There are two sides on this case, each arguing that their freedom of speech trumps the other side’s freedom of speech. The picketers feel that they should have priority to freely speak their mind, while those who advocate for the sanctity of the home believe that their freedom to turn to home as a refuge and as a place of privacy is, in effect, its own form of free speech. I know very well how I stand on this question of free speech; I stand on the side of the US Supreme Court. I certainly am no legal scholar, and I definitely do not have the audacity to claim that my judgement on constitutional matters is more insightful than that put forth by the highest and most revered court in our nation. Beyond that, I am also inclined to agree with the fundamental philosophical belief that it is imperative to, in the words of the court, “[preserve] the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value”, and that “there simply is no right to force speech into the home of an unwilling listener”.

The second issue in this debate is more problematic. It is the question of enforcement. While on the face of it this law has been upheld by the courts and deemed constitutional, to the best of our knowledge there is little hope of successful enforcement. Picketers need simply confuse their focus away from one particular residence, and instead focus on several, so as to eliminate the ability for law enforcement officers to satisfactorily prove that their picketing is focused on an individual residence. We are continuing to communicate with communities that have, in the past, attempted to enforce such ordinances. So far we have found absolutely no enforcement that has been successfully upheld in court.

While I agree with the spirit of the law, I believe that it is irresponsible to pass a law when historical precedent shows very plainly that such a law is not able to be enforced. It is also important to note that, while we seemingly could not enforce a law such as this, we have a wealth of other laws that protect the safety of our residents, and that protect them from harrasment, stalking, and undue noise in their residential environment.

We will continue to look for ways to enforce this law, and see if there is not some solution. But until it is shown that the law can be enforced, I am not in favor of the passage of this ordinance.

July 8, 2008 Council Meeting

Tonight's council meeting will be held at the Bexley High School Cassingham Community Room at 7:00 pm, with safety and finance committee meetings commencing at 5:30 pm. This is a change of venue, so please make note if you're planning on attending.

Some of the items under discussion will include a the discussion of a new proposed ordinance preventing picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual in the City of Bexley, as well as further discussion regarding the proposed sidewalk ordinance in which sidewalk repair responsiblity would revert to a pre-2004 system. Additionally, there are a variety of small and/or standard finance ordinances which are up for a third reading.