South Euclid 2019 Election Endorsements

Turnout in off-year elections tends to be low.  But South Euclid voters have some important choices to make.  Here are my endorsements for 2019.

For mayor: Georgine Welo

Shirley Smith, a former state legislator, is running to replace Georgine Welo, who is seeking her fifth term as mayor.  Several weeks ago, I received a mailer from Smith.  It's the single most dishonest piece of local campaign literature I've ever seen.

Smith, a 10-year resident who I have never seen at a city council meeting, seems to blame Mayor Welo for the decline in South Euclid's population. The population here peaked in 1970 at 29,579. By the time Mayor Welo was elected, it was between 23,537 and 22,295. The rate of population decline in South Euclid has slowed since 2010 - partly thanks to the Cutters Creek development which Mayor Welo favored. It's also worth mentioning that all of Cleveland's inner-ring suburbs have declining populations - including Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights which have both lost more population by percentage.  Smith, perhaps deliberately, fails to understand that South Euclid is essentially "built out" with very little potential to attract more population.

Smith wants greater “diversity” in housing.  What exactly does that mean?  South Euclid is already known for its ethnically diverse population – a good thing, in my opinion.  Most residents are homeowners which, I believe, is what the vast majority of people here want.  After a decades long increase in rental properties, the numbers have recently started to reverse and now more are buying rather than renting.  This is in part due to stabilization programs put in place by City Council and championed by Mayor Welo and housing manager Sally Martin.  How does Smith define diverse housing?  Apartments?  Multi-unit homes?  Public housing?  A senior living facility?  Several years ago, a proposal was floated for a senior living facility on the former Lowden school property (one of the very few parcels available for a development of that scale).  Residents were vocally opposed – and they would likely be even more opposed to subsidized public housing. Aside from the occasional empty lot, where only a single home could fit, South Euclid is built out.  Any new housing development would come at the sacrifice of existing dwellings – which would require eminent domain.

Speaking of housing, Smith says she wants to create a “Landlord accountability ordinance”.  I’m all for that.  But South Euclid already has some of the most stringent landlord and vacant property ordinances in the county.  What would her proposed ordinance do that’s not already being done?

Speaking of diversity, Smith says she wants to promote South Euclid as a diverse, tolerant community.  Where was Shirley Smith when Mayor Welo and City Council were facing strident opposition over the new comprehensive non-discrimination ordinance which was proposed in 2017 and passed in 2018? I was part of that effort, and we sure could have used her help.

Smith takes Welo to task for the city’s 2007 decision to invest in rebuilding Cedar Center North: My parents moved to South Euclid in 1971 when I was four years old. I remember Cedar Center North from that time and by the time I was house hunting in the area back in 2006-2007, I was appalled at the deterioration. Mayor Welo and Council took the initiative and bought the faded strip in 2007 with a plan for a new, greener shopping area. Then the Great Recession hit. Despite necessary changes, CCN was rebuilt and is unquestionably superior in every respect to what was there before – and every parcel eventually sold. The primary complaint I hear about CCN is the lack of parking, which is actually an indicator of how useful CCN has become to the community and how well it complements Cedar Center South. CCN was an investment in our community, just like renovating one’s own house – it cost money and the city is paying that money back on schedule.  Mayor Welo certainly deserves no blame for failing to predict a housing crash and Recession that very few saw coming.  If she did deserve the blame for the way things unfolded at CCN, the time to do so was the 2011 or 2015 elections.  Nor does Mayor Welo deserve blame for Governor Kasich’s decision to stiff cities and inner ring suburbs by slashing the aid to cities fund which had been in use since the 1930s – an odious decision that Governor DeWine has perpetuated.  I would also add that the rebuilding of CCN has spurred new development further east on Cedar Road – including a new dental facility and branch of Chase bank.

Under Mayor Welo’s leadership, South Euclid has seen over $100 million in private investment, including the aforementioned Cutters Creek, Oakwood Commons, the rebuilt shopping center at Mayfield and Green, and the Glastic expansion.  These have helped to shore up our tax base and are part of the reason that South Euclid maintains a strong credit rating.  This has had the fringe benefit of improving storefront occupancy throughout the city – although much remains to be done.  Mayor Welo and her team are continuing to push forward with an ambitious proposed redevelopment of the entire May-Green district which would vastly improve quality of life for those who live here.

Nobody likes paying taxes, especially when the rates increase. In the wake of the housing crisis, the Great Recession, and Governor Kasich’s decision (perpetuated by Governor DeWine) to slash state aid to cities, South Euclid was faced with a revenue shortfall which threatened our bond rating.  Earlier this year, City Council unanimously voted to remove the income tax credit for residents who work outside South Euclid – which is most of us who have jobs including my spouse and me.  I can guarantee you, not one member of Council relished having to make that vote.  Property tax rates were increased via several voter approved levies including a safety levy which is dedicated to our Police, Fire and EMS – but it’s important to remember about 66% of property taxes still go to the South Euclid-Lyndhurst school district. It’s important to note that South Euclid is hardly the only city to raise taxes in one form or another, and the few that have not yet done so are likely to soon.

Speaking of schools, Shirley Smith says she wants to improve our system and make it more diverse.  If there’s one thing to be said for SE-L schools, they are plenty diverse – not just in terms of ethnicity, but across the spectrum.  I was heartened when, before a performance at Brush, I walked the hallways of my old alma mater and saw a poster for the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance. If only this had existed when I was a student there!  But here’s the main problem with Smith’s statement: Neither the mayor nor council have any say regarding the school district – not on curricula, nor truant policy, nor budgeting.  Nor does the mayor get to draw the borders for the school district, which is what Smith has proposed doing despite two court cases that state it’s beyond her purview.  It’s called separation of powers, and if Smith doesn’t grasp that concept, I submit that she is not qualified to be South Euclid’s executive.

Perhaps the biggest falsehood Shirley Smith throws around revolves the South Euclid court.  Smith depicts this as a catfight between Mayor Welo and Judge Gayle Williams-Byers.  In fact, this Judge has wrought havoc with the courts since she was elected.  The Mayor, Council (including Mayor Welo’s opponent in the 2015 election), Police Department and other services are unanimous that Williams-Byers’ tenure has been marked by reckless budgeting, overstaffing, underperformance, agenda pushing, and publicly funded questionable travel to national and international destinations. Her case clearance rate is so low that it beggars the question: What exactly is all the money the judge is demanding needed for?

Shirley Smith, who has a sketchy history regarding her residency and resigned from the Ohio legislature to collect medical benefits, is not interested in South Euclid for the long haul.  She’s interested in her own short-term gain.  Is it any wonder that the Plain Dealer/Sun Messenger and Cleveland Stonewall Democrats have endorsed Mayor Welo?

Mayor Welo has seen South Euclid through the housing crisis and great recession and wants to continue the work of renewing our city.  She put her political career on the line by supporting broad non-discrimination ordinances which include LGBT people.  I am supporting her reelection.

For City Council – at large:

Four people are running for three at-large Council seats.  Incumbents Marty Gelfand and Justin Tisdale, and newcomers Susan Hardy and Curtis Orr. Beyond her website, I know nothing about Hardy although she seems to have good intentions.  In 2017, Orr ran and lost against Sara Continenza to succeed Ed Icove as Ward 3 Councilor.  Orr didn’t even bother to show up for the candidates’ forum back then and has done little during this cycle except circulate flyers and post lawn signs.  He has no platform and no ideas. 

Gelfand, a Navy Veteran, has a long history of service to the Greater Cleveland area in general and South Euclid in particular.  He was a vocal advocate of the non-discrimination ordinance that was passed last year, and among the first to oppose an overly broad religious exemption that was supported by ex-councilman Ed Icove.  Gelfand is the only council candidate endorsed by the Cleveland Stonewall Democrats.  Tisdale was appointed to replace Jason Russel who stepped down last year and has shown himself to be a capable city councilor. 

We endorse Marty Gelfand and Justin Tisdale.

Issue 66 - Yes

Issue 66 will renew the property tax levy that was enacted in 2013.  The levy is not a tax increase, is dedicated to South Euclid’s police, fire, and EMT, and we urge its renewal.   South Euclid’s safety forces, and in particular the police department, have a reputation for balancing the needs of law enforcement with simple human compassion.  I have never felt unsafe when walking my dog in my Bluestone neighborhood – even at night.  Our safety forces deserve our support.

Despite the challenges we’ve faced over the last decade, South Euclid is unquestionably a better place to live than it was when I moved back here in 2008. Our housing stock is in better shape, with many homes that were left unusable in the shadow of the foreclosure crisis now removed – and many of the remaining homes renovated. The new Cedar Center North is attractive and useful. Oakwood Commons is still a work in progress, but even half-finished it’s an income generator for the city. The May-Green district is more walkable with more storefronts occupied than any time in recent memory and a renovated shopping plaza. Ambitious plans for May-Green will, if followed through, yield an even better downtown district.  With all the progress we’ve made, why would we ever want to reverse course?

South Euclid’s anti-discrimination ordinance – a long time coming

Monday night, South Euclid’s city council unanimously passed Ordinance 12-17, outlawing discrimination in a broad sector of categories including sexual orientation and gender identity.  The law replaces South Euclid’s previous anti-discrimination ordinances, which were scattered, piecemeal, and inconsistent.  As indicated by the last two digits of the ordinance, it had been under consideration since 2017 – June to be precise.  Passage of this ordinance makes South Euclid the 20^th of Ohio’s 938 municipalities to have a law that specifically protects our city’s LGBT persons.  I have never been prouder to be a South Euclid resident than I was when this ordinance was passed.  For a city council and mayor who have taken brick-bats from the extreme right and extreme left, I can only say: Bravo and well done.

The ordinance has been described in the media as controversial.  It was only controversial based on the shouting of a few people, many of whom are not residents of South Euclid, and nearly every one of whom is a member of South Euclid’s Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic church or the Lyceum school – which is located on church grounds.  At four separate council meetings, I saw the same people rise in opposition to the bill, often raising arbitrary points about bathroom usage by transgender people and the hypothetical bakery.   I saw these opponents for what they were: a well-organized flash mob orchestrated by Sacred Heart, Lyceum, and Cleveland Right to Life (which separated from National Right to Life due to the Cleveland group’s extremism).    

Addressing the December 11, 2017 council meeting.

By January, Sacred Heart and Lyceum saw the handwriting on the wall and appeared to assent to passage if a religious exemption was added.  (The Lyceum school did not help their case when it became known in December that an email was sent to a city council person threatening to sue the city if the ordinance was passed.  Even some of those who had reservations about the ordinance thought it was heavy handed for a tax-exempt organization to threaten to sue over legislation put into place by a council elected by South Euclid taxpayers.)  The language in the proposed exemption was so broad that one could stretch the ordinance from South Euclid to the Vatican without technically breaking it.  Councilpersons Ruth Gray and Jason Russell were the first to point this out in January.  The exemption was discussed for almost the entirely of Monday’s Committee of the Whole meeting before council decided to remove it from the legislation by a vote of 5-2.   

Following that vote, the ordinance’s opponents went ballistic.  Father Dave Ireland of Sacred Heart (the same Father Ireland who tried to smooth talk his way past the incidents at the Sacred Heart of Jesus festival in 2014) intoned that he’d been “a proud member of the community for the past 13 years, up until now".  The terms “pontificating” and “pompous” were created for men just like him.  The director of the Lyceum School, Luke Macik, who’d previously tried to couch his opposition in pseudo-intellectual claptrap (e.g., being LGBT is entirely subjective, as if belief in a religious doctrine and a supernatural creator who cannot be seen is anything other than subjective), stated that “marriage is sacred” and pronounced the proceedings “shameful” – forgetting that marriage, which the Supreme Court has already stated is a Constitutional right, had nothing to do with the ordinance.

As I pointed out in my remarks to the Council, Ordinance 12-17 already has a reasonable exemption for religious institutions and adheres to the exemptions provided for in the Ohio Revised Code.  I reminded Council and the audience that without compromise, Social Security would not have been signed into law.  Compromise helped our country to endure the Great Depression, obliterate Fascism, defeat Communism, and land a man on the Moon.  Many people of faith, including two members of Clergy who spoke, were in favor of the ordinance.  Indeed, numerous Catholics I spoke to were also in favor – indicating that the Catholic Church is not entirely undivided in this matter.  These people recognize that America was intended to be neutral in terms of religion, neither endorsing nor rejecting any particular religion, as evidenced in the First Amendment – and that our country does not need to be run by Taliban, either Christian or otherwise.  And we would be well to remember that religion, including Christianity, has been been used to justify some of the most egregious monstrosities in human history.  In many nations, religion is still a call to violence, not love.

I have no desire to prevent Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, or members of any other faith from practicing their religion.  Passage of Ordinance 12-17 does not mean religions are required to “approve” of LGBT people.  It merely means that prejudicial treatment against LGBT people in terms of housing, public accommodations, and employment, is against the law.

I don’t particularly care whether a religious representative approves of me.  What I demand as a taxpaying American is equality before the law, and Ordinance 12-17 moves our region closer to that ideal. 

Recently a film was released which dealt with a young man’s coming out: Love, Simon.  Even for contemporary teens with supportive families and communities, coming out can be traumatic.  The film brought back unpleasant memories of the isolation I felt as I began to realize that I was gay, and the lies I told as I tried to conceal it. The worry about being discovered as gay was much worse than coming out – which was relatively liberating.  As I heard the comments from those in opposition to the ordinance, including one comment from a Lyceum student, I thought “Thank God I went to Brush.”  Even though the Brush High School of 1985 didn’t have the Gay-Straight Alliance it has today, it was a relatively accepting place.  I can only imagine what a student attending the Lyceum school or a similar institution would encounter, even in today’s “woke” era.   

I am 51 years old.  Statistically, my life is more than half over.   My husband and I were together for over four years before we decided to travel to Vermont to get married – because we couldn’t marry in Ohio.  And it was another five years before that marriage was nationally recognized.  We both have good jobs at great companies that are both LGBT friendly.  Although Ordinance 12-17 applies to us, I don’t think of it as being for us.  It’s for the young person who knows he or she is “different” and is considering coming out – or for the person who has come out, and is looking for an apartment, a job, or shopping for a service from a local company.  Passing Ordinance 12-17 has been a long and emotionally difficult slog, but if this law helps one person, it has been worth it.  

2017 in Review

To put it mildly, 2017 was a challenging year.

Nationally, the most noteworthy event has been the inauguration and continual dysfunction of Donald J. Trump as President.  I will not waste space recounting every one of Trump’s lies, outrageous tweets, bad appointments, and bad decisions.  Trump is not worth my time, other than to say that by mid-February, my first thought upon awakening was commonly “What stupid thing did Trump do overnight?”  I’ve since found the best way for me to cope with the stress of a dangerously demented President is to adapt an air of detached bemusement – and occasionally fire off brazen tweets which, surprisingly, have not gotten me blocked. 

I have had more than enough to deal with otherwise.

I slammed into my 50s with an almost simultaneous diagnosis of high blood pressure, sleep apnea, and an inguinal hernia.  Surprisingly, dealing with the hernia was considerably less complicated than the apnea: I was diagnosed, surgery was scheduled, performed, and I recovered.  Sleep apnea was first suspected by my doctor in February.  It was not until June that I was able to undertake a sleep study, another month to get the results, then a dental consultation in October, fitting for an oral appliance in November, which I finally received in December.   And American politicians have the gall to warn about the dangers of universal healthcare by trotting out waiting times in the UK and Canada!  Of course, none of these politicians have ever had to deal with private health insurers or providers.

Prepped for the sleep study

2017 marked nine years since Dan & I bought our home in South Euclid.  On the home front, we only undertook one project this year – a new fence.  2018 will bring a small expansion – a small mud room leading to the back door.   There was a time, mostly 2009-2011, when I worried moving here was a mistake.  But 2017 saw continued evidence of a renaissance in our city.  The newly rebuilt shopping center and Mayfield and Green Road opened to 100% capacity and brisk business – so much so that the parking lot had to be expanded.  This is on top of Oakwood Commons and the newly renovated Cedar Center North - both of which are well filled and busy. 

2017 is also the year South Euclid city council began work on a new, comprehensive non-discrimination ordinance.  City Council, for the most part, have courageously stood up to the bullying tactics being carried out by the local Catholic Church – including an outrageous web posting I previously blogged about.  I am hopeful the ordinance will be passed in early 2018.

2017 was not all gloom & doom, nor hell-fire and brimstone.  Dan & I enjoyed our first ever cruise in March, and had a brief but eventful visit to LasVegas in September.  We have tentatively signed on for another cruise in 2018.

And there will be other events on which to report.

An Open Letter to South Euclid City Council

The following is a slightly modified version of an email I sent to South Euclid's City Council:

Last night, while perusing Facebook, I was confronted by one of the most offensive, distorted political screeds I’ve ever seen. 

As someone with whom I’ve spoken before, I know you’re too intelligent to fall for this nonsense.   

The article (which, of course, shows no specific author) claims that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people and their advocates are bullying people of faith into accepting LGBT people.  Excuse me?  Is there an epidemic of LGBT people beating up on Catholics, on Protestants, Jews, Muslims, or members of any faith?  Was Matthew Shepherd killed because of his faith?  The article goes on to claim that members of the LGBT community and those who advocate for equality are in favor of a “demonic gender ideology” that stems from a “deadly impulse” and “ideological colonialism.” 

Then there’s the image at the top of their page.   It was obviously included to inflame rather than to illuminate.  Does this look like anyone you know in South Euclid?  It shouldn’t, because the picture itself was taken in New York City.  For someone to use a photo from a New York event (where people tend to go over the top) as an example of life here in South Euclid is profoundly dishonest.  If you want to see a typical South Euclid couple, I invite you to look at the most recent issue of South Euclid magazine (image attached).  Standing next to Councilman Marty Gelfand are my husband Daniel and myself. My husband is originally from Puerto Rico and works as a medical technologist at a South Euclid facility.  I grew up in South Euclid and Lyndhurst, graduated from Brush High School in 1985, and have worked at Progressive Insurance for the past 13 years.  Both Daniel and I are productive, taxpaying residents of South Euclid.  I am pointing out these facts, which you probably already know, for the following reason:

At the October 9^th Council meeting, a contingent of people spoke against passage of Ordinance 12-17.  The Sun Messenger reporter gave a cursory rundown of the event.  I attended both the Council and Committee of the Whole meetings.  I carefully noted where these people stated they were from and with which group they were associated.  Nearly every person who spoke against the Ordinance was either tied to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church or to the Lyceum school, which is located on the church’s property.  Many of the speakers were not South Euclid residents/taxpayers – from as far away as North Royalton, Newberry Township, and Concord.  In other words, this was a carefully coordinated flash-mob intended to sway council into believing that they represent the majority.  I doubt a true South Euclid majority, or even a majority of religious people would agree with them.  Indeed, I spoke with several Catholic members of my family, and they were appalled to learn of this group’s action. 

I spoke briefly at the council meeting, abandoning my prepared remarks and speaking from the heart.  As the time for commenting at council meetings is limited, I’d like to address a few of the other comments point by point (my responses are underlined):

Someone at the Committee of the Whole meeting brought up the case concerning the cake baking facility currently before the Supreme Court – in which the bakery is being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple’s wedding.   If the Court rules in favor of the couple, then the law will already be on the books in South Euclid and can be enforced.  If the court rules in favor of the bakery, then that portion of the law will simply not apply.  However, if the Ordinance is not passed and the Court rules in favor of the couple, then Council will have to go back to the drawing board and address that in a future Ordinance.

Luke Macik stated that religious organizations need to be free to hire/reject applicants based on religious principles.   Ordinance 12-17 has an exemption for religious organizations.

Mark Langley stated that the Ordinance is unnecessary because there is no evidence of anti-LGBT discrimination in South Euclid.  Do we need to wait until someone is killed by a drunk driver to outlaw driving while intoxicated?

Jeanette Flood of Lakewood stated the Ordinance was telling businesses who they could hire.  The Ordinance does not tell people who they can hire.  It merely states that employers cannot discriminate based on certain criteria, as does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which has been upheld numerous times by the United States Supreme Court.

Molly Monaco stated she was fearful that perverts would use the Ordinance as cover to enter public bathrooms/changing rooms and prey on children.  No one in South Euclid’s LGBT community wants children to be placed in danger.  But let’s be realistic.  Child endangerment is against the law and will remain so if the Ordinance is passed.  Other communities have passed similar Ordinances with no increase in the type of incidents Ms. Monaco imagines.  It is well known that those who prey on children are most often members or friends of the child’s family.  Does Ms. Monaco, or any of the others who raised this issue, really believe that Transgender people have gone to the trouble and expense of hormones, multiple surgeries, dealing with the bureaucracy to have their identity forms updated, not to mention the emotional trauma of telling their families – all for the thrill of using another restroom?  All to prey on children?  That’s a hurtful insult to my Transgender friends.  

Michael Rodriguez of Newberry Township stated the law is not necessary as Ohio is an Employee at Will state in which someone can be hired or fired at any time.  While Ohio is an Employee at Will state, if a fired or non-hired Employee can prove in a court of law that they were discriminated against due to their race, religion, or several other criteria, they are entitled to recompense.  South Euclid should add Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to that criteria.

Christy Raynor of Lyndhurst stated that if the Ordinance is passed people would move out of South Euclid, as people have already moved to West Geauga.  Here is where I put my cards on the table.  Ms. Raynor is correct that certain people have left South Euclid for West Geauga – as well as Lake County.  We all know why these people moved: Because over the past three decades South Euclid has become more diverse and there are those who are uncomfortable with ethnic, religious, and other forms of diversity.  Frankly, if these are the types of people who panic when an African-American or other minority family moves next door, then South Euclid is better off without those who’ve abandoned our community.  Good riddance.

Martin Joyce of North Royalton stated that Catholic Christians have certain religious tenets they must follow and that passage of the Ordinance will prevent them from honoring those tenets.  Throughout history, religion has been used to justify the most egregious behavior, from slavery, to sexual exploitation, to genocide.  Even today, there are “honor killings” in which a family member can be killed for trying to make their own religious choice, for refusing to be sold into marriage, or for being gay.  In several nations, being gay is a “death penalty” offense – including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Nigeria.  Freedom of religion does not give one the right to break the just laws of this country or this community – and there are already adequate exemptions in the Ordinance.

The article to which I have linked, as well as other articles that can be found online, including one from a group called “C-Fam” that compared LGBT people to NAZI’s, are examples of how low some people will stoop to prevent another group of people from obtaining their just rights. 

I hope you will see through the smokescreen this group is trying to create, and support Ordinance 12-17.

Respectfully Yours,

Hank Drake

This is not a South Euclid gay couple

This is. 

TeMPO's end, and Telling's new beginning

As was reported by the media several months ago, the Telling Mansion Preservation Organization disbanded early this year.  It has been over a year since I posted about the Telling Mansion, and I was reluctant to reenter the fray.  But after careful consideration, I have decided to speak now and henceforth hold my peace – at least for the foreseeable future.  As one of the founding members of TeMPO, I believe I have earned this right and that my opinions are founded on facts, not suppositions.

Let me make it plain, the disbanding of TeMPO was the direct result of two disruptive members who poisoned the atmosphere and refused to depart gracefully from the group, abetted by a third member who was unwilling to stand up to their inappropriate behavior.  When TeMPO’s bylaws were written, there was no provision for terminating a membership.  It simply never occurred to us that such a provision would be necessary.

When TeMPO was formed in late 2012, there was no notion of who might purchase the Telling site – although it was becoming increasingly clear that it would be sold and the library moved, despite the efforts of the Save the Mansion Library Group.  TeMPO formed to, hopefully, demonstrate that there were those who were concerned about the Telling Mansion and, while not necessarily supporting the Cuyahoga County Public Library’s decision to move, were willing to work with them to ensure the building and property were preserved.  As one member put it, we were the “sane” alternative to the Mansion Library group.  But how well can sanity work when we live in insane times – when a sizeable portion of the country believes the President is an illegal alien, that teachers ought to carry guns, and that Chem-Trails are the cause of many of our troubles? 

Upon the formation of TeMPO, I accepted the position of Vice President.  During that first year, TeMPO formally incorporated, created an action plan, raised initial funds, applied for 501(c)(3) status, and reached out to the library board and, eventually, the prospective owner.  All of us at TeMPO, particularly the board, put our hearts into the effort, but never let our passion devolve into the hyperbole and inappropriate behavior that characterized the Save the Mansion Library group which has, to date, accomplished nothing positive.

Upon the election of new officers in April 2014, I resigned as Vice President of TeMPO.  I did not offer my own name for consideration.  At the time, I announced my decision to scale back my activities in TeMPO due to career and personal considerations.  I did my best to ensure an orderly transition by turning over all materials I had in relation to TeMPO to the new President and Vice President.

Unfortunately, the new President and Vice President were met with hostility by a few other members – despite the lack of alternative candidates.   The new leadership’s efforts to get TeMPO moving, to apply for grants to renovate the gatekeeper’s lodge, to establish a fundraising apparatus, and for public outreach were stymied at every turn.   Between April, 2014 and March, 2015, I did not attend any TeMPO meetings - although I received updates from several group members.  I kept in contact with the group’s new communications director, who had come over from the Save the Mansion Library group, and about whom I felt wary.  Despite my concerns regarding her intentions, I assisted her in putting together a press release – which was never issued.  After receiving conflicting information from multiple parties with differing viewpoints, I was persuaded to attend TeMPO’s March 2015 meeting.  The tension was so thick I could barely stand to remain in the room.  It became obvious that the group’s new secretary did not have the mental stability needed to do the job.  Particularly galling was the demeanor of the very person I assisted with the press release.  Upon the expiration of TeMPO’s webdomain, she purchased it, and in a process known as “cybersquatting”, initially pointed it to her own personal website, then for use by the Save the Mansion library group – a nonsensical idea as the new library was already under construction with no chance the move would be prevented.  As it turned out, my suspicions about this woman, which I had made known to the former President of our group and others, proved exactly correct – she had originated as a leading member of the Save the Mansion Library group and her intentions were anything but benign.  On top of all this, one of TeMPO’s most influential members,  who ran for mayor several years ago, was unwilling or unable to stand up to the misbehaving members.  In my opinion, while a competent CPA, he has all the fortitude of a spineless jellyfish. 

There are probably many such groups that start with high hopes and enthusiasm for the hard work necessary to keep the vision going – only to dissipate due to internal squabbling.  But this is the only case I know of where a group such as ours was deliberately infiltrated by someone with a destructive agenda and sabotaged from within. 

As I have stated before, the notion that Richard Barone’s motive in purchasing the Telling Site is merely a ruse to flip the land is nonsensical on its face.  The very limited return on investment he would receive for the rather small portion of land would simply not be worth the time he’s put into the effort.  As a seasoned investor, Mr. Barone could easily make that money with a few clicks of his computer mouse over the course of a lazy afternoon – and save himself the trouble of dealing with the hysterical ire of a few self-appointed community guardians.  I have no doubt that Mr. Barone’s decision to purchase the Mansion and grounds was made with the best intentions.  This is demonstrated by the work he’s already done to hire a permanent, live-in custodian; the replacement of the failing gutters with historically accurate copper gutters; and his work with the South Euclid-Lyndhurst Historical Society to renovate and expand their space.  It’s true that part of his purchase agreement called for the Library to repave the driveway – and why shouldn’t they?  CCPL’s neglect of the property has led to so many issues with this Library that I stopped using it as such well before they closed.  Mr. Barone recently purchased a New Jersey porcelain art manufacturer, which certainly gives the lie to the ridiculous accusations hurled by the Save the Mansion Library Group – which recently filed another lawsuit in a desperate grasp for relevance.  Indeed, a former member of that very group told me that their “leader”, a Cleveland Heights based activist with a knack for garnering publicity for herself, admitted that she didn’t really care about the Telling Mansion, and was just trying to stick it to the CCPL.

I’m certain Mr. Barone knows that decisions are not made, nor public opinion particularly swayed, by online click-baiting or by comments made at Cleveland.com and other sites – especially when many of the comments obviously come from the same person posting under multiple sock-puppet accounts.  Decisions are made and actions are undertaken by those who show up and do the hard work.  I was and remain proud of my work for TeMPO.  My only regret is that others were more interested in getting themselves publicity than in moving forward with positive action.  

2015 Election Endorsements

2015 is an off-year election, meaning there are no Federal or State officials on the ballot.  Turnout in off-year elections tends to be low, so every vote counts.  This is a particularly important election for South Euclid: Not only is the mayor up for reelection, so are two incumbent at-large city councilors – with a third seat open after the retirement of Council President David Miller.  Additionally, there are several important Charter issues which will help determine the direction of South Euclid for the next generation.

For Mayor:

Georgine Welo is running for a fourth term as South Euclid’s mayor.  Her challenger is Ward 1 councilperson Ruth Gray.  Mayor Welo successfully shepherded South Euclid through the Great Recession, the worst economic storm to hit the United States in over 70 years, to safe economic harbor.  Welo’s steady leadership has been noted not just by her fellow mayors and members of the local Democratic Party, but by Ohio’s Republican State Auditor, Dave Yost, who presented South Euclid with an award for accurate and transparent record keeping practices.  South Euclid’s bond rating is currently Aa2 – meaning High Grade – which is another indicator of Welo’s fiscal leadership.

As I have noted elsewhere, my family moved to South Euclid in 1971.  Only someone delusional would deny that South Euclid is a very different community than it was then – as is every inner-ring suburb.  Population has been declining since the 1980s – although South Euclid’s rate of population loss is less than, for example, Cleveland Heights or Cuyahoga County as a whole.  No doubt, South Euclid has endured some tough times, but over the past three years I have noticed improvements.  I walk the streets of my neighborhood every day, and drive many other streets on a regular basis.  I see once distressed housing steadily being rehabbed or removed, fewer for sale signs, greater levels of occupancy – both residential and commercial, the creative rebranding of neighborhoods, and the creation of pocket parks - along with smaller amenities like the new Pump Track at Bexley Park.  South Euclid’s troubles will not be over tomorrow.  There are still important issues which need to be addressed more effectively, such as neglectful out of town residential and commercial landlords.  But the city is headed in the right direction.

Part of Mayor Welo’s leadership has required taking stands which have not been universally popular: the purchase and redevelopment of Cedar Center North; advocating for the Oakwood Commons development; and increasing property taxes to compensate for shortfalls caused by decreasing property values, declining population, and the elimination of State aid to Cities by Governor Kasich – which has been a problem throughout Cleveland’s inner-ring suburbs.  It’s very easy for politicians to say “Vote for me and I will lower your taxes”, but it’s not so easy to live with the consequences those tax cuts - which are often geared toward the wealthy - have on urban and inner-run suburban communities like South Euclid.

Some supporters of councilperson Gray have criticized Mayor Welo’s stances on these matters – while failing to note that Gray also favored the aforementioned efforts.  They also conveniently fail to note that councilperson Gray, in her position as Director of Community Life for Bedford Heights, was a co-defendant in a racial discrimination lawsuit which resulted in an award of $1.83 million to the plaintiffs.  The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and if such a suit were to happen in South Euclid it could have catastrophic consequences.

We feel Mayor Welo has performed as well as anyone could have, given the economic and demographic realities of the time.  Further, we see Mayor Welo’s vision and hard work that have gone into developing the city’s new Comprehensive Plan as the best way forward for our community.  We enthusiastically favor Mayor Welo’s reelection.

For City Council, at-large:

South Euclid’s three at-large council seats are up this cycle.  Two incumbents are running for reelection.

Marty Gelfand was elected to city council in 2011.  Marty, a Navy Veteran and former aide to Congressman Dennis Kucinich, has served the city ably over the past four years.  While some of his colleagues have engaged in divisive tactics, Marty has been a calming force in getting council to cooperate on several important issues, including the Safety Forces Levy.  Marty was of great assistance to the Telling Mansion Preservation Organization by drafting our by-laws and giving our group direction.  I am privileged to call Marty Gelfand a friend and I strongly recommend his reelection.

Dennis Fiorelli was appointed at large-councilor in 2010 when Sunny Simon stepped down to take her seat on Cuyahoga County Council, and was elected in his own right the following year.  He has served with distinction.  Fiorelli was the force behind South Euclid’s refuse collection contract with Kimble company.  This contract provided for separate refuse and recycling containers for each household – large enough to accommodate the needs of most residents – who do not have to sort between different types of recyclables (e.g., paper, plastic, cardboard).  The convenience of the Kimble program has resulted in a 40-60% increase in recycling citywide and a savings to the city of $280,000 from 2011-2013.  Recently, several cities, including Highland Heights, have adopted this method based on South Euclid’s success in this matter.  There are numerous candidates who like to boast how “green” they are.  Fiorelli has walked the talk, and deserves to be reelected.

There are four non-incumbent candidates for the council: John Currid, Ron Sabransky, Andre Reynolds, and Jason Russell. 

In 2014, John Currid unsuccessfully contested Sunny Simon’s reelection for County Council representative.  Currid hails from New Jersey and moved to South Euclid several years ago.  He has not served in elected office before.  In fact, I can find nothing Currid has done relating to public service – not even volunteer work.  Even though South Euclid’s local election is non-partisan, it should be noted that Currid is a very conservative Republican and leader of South Euclid’s Republican Club – so he’s already out of step with most voters in South Euclid.  In 2014, he called for removing Ohio from Common Core educational standards, railing against it as “anti-American” and “anti-Israel” – one of the Tea Party’s prime talking points.  But City County council has no jurisdiction over public education, so how does he propose to stop Common Core from within the boundaries of the office he seeks?  Although I’ve endorsed Republicans in the past, there’s no indication Currid is open minded enough to listen to South Euclid’s voters – most of whom do not share his philosophy.  

Ron Sabransky was a member of South Euclid’s Planning Commission until he was dismissed by Mayor Welo in 2014.  Sabransky threatened legal action in the wake of his termination, but nothing came of it.  He was also the Treasurer for John Currid’s unsuccessful 2014 campaign, which can be taken as an indicator of his political sympathies.  Sabransky doesn’t appear to have distinguished himself during his time on the Planning Commission and has not specified what he’d bring to the table as a member of city council.  His candidacy is a non-starter.

Andre Reynolds was an Accounting major at Howard University - available documentation does not state whether he received a degree.  Much of his career has been split between private sector banking and mid-level public management.  Reynolds advocates for the set-aside of $100,000 in safety levy monies for programs that focus on youth job creation and retention; for further infill housing/condominium development; and greater access to public parking.  I support the first effort – with the qualification that money should not be diverted from the Safety Levy, but rather obtained by aggressively pursuing grants.  Reynold’s other two proposals, however, leave me puzzled.  There is very little developable land remaining in South Euclid.  True, there are scattered single lots which dot the city – leftovers from the Recession.  Those are not candidates for condominiums or townhouses, but would be practical for single family houses.  There are also two larger parcels of land within the area bordered by Monticello, Parkview, Ammon, and Trebisky - which could contain small condo/townhouse communities.  Development of those parcels would be tricky, and previous proposals were unpopular.  Further, whatever was developed would doubtless be tax abated and fail to help fill city coffers in the near term.  Finally, with South Euclid’s population historically on the decline, it makes little sense to add to an already oversupplied housing stock.  Better to provide amenities that will draw more potential residents.  Regarding parking, for the most part South Euclid has a more than adequate supply of spaces.  Indeed, I have seldom seen the parking lot behind Maymore Shopping Plaza filled beyond one-third of its capacity.  While there are occasional storefronts on Mayfield Road which do not offer off-street parking, nearby side streets have plenty of spaces. 

Jason Russell, a native of Hudson, Ohio, also lived in various Ohio communities, including Shaker Heights, before moving to South Euclid.  As someone who has lived as far east as Haverhill, Massachusetts and as far west as Half Moon Bay, California, I consider diversity in life experience to be a positive thing.  Russell also holds a Master’s Degree in Urban Planning from Cleveland State University, a skill which is greatly needed in a community which is trying to reverse decades of decline.  Currently, Russell is a member of the Planning Commission for both South Euclid and Lakewood, which puts him in a unique position to assess the situation and weigh options in two inner-ring, yet very different communities.  Russell advocates for thinking outside the box to incentivize small businesses to rent the empty storefronts along Mayfield Road.  In other words, Russell wishes to bring the amenities that make communities attractive to potential residents.  As I’ve said previously, the Mayfield-Green intersection, despite recent improvements, remains an embarrassment that needs to be addressed – and Russell seems to agree.  He has also stated the need for more rigorous code enforcement and I agree – particularly as it relates to commercial structures. 

For those reasons, we endorse Russell.

Ohio Constitutional Amendments:

Issue 1: Redistricting Reform: Ohio has some of the most gerrymandered districts in the nation, the result of the state’s current laws which allow the Governor, Secretary of State, and State Auditor to draw the district lines.  It will establish a seven member, bipartisan commission, and require public meetings and open display of proposed districts.  We favor passage of this amendment, which will put the needed tools in place to correct this problem.

Issue 2: Anti-Monopoly: This amendment would prevent “a monopoly or a special interest, privilege, benefit, right, or license of a commercial economic nature” from being enshrined in the state Constitution.  It was created in response to Responsible Ohio’s amendment (see Issue 3, below).  If both amendments were passed, the inevitable outcome would be a litany of litigation which would tie up both principles for years.  Whether for the legalization of Marijuana or in more standard business, monopolies are inherently bad for consumers.  One need look no further than the recent airline mergers - resulting in rising prices, declining service, and reduced choice – for an example of how lax and unenforced anti-trust laws have harmed the average American.  Thus, we strongly favor passage of this amendment. 

Issue 3: Marijuana legalization: Marijuana has been illegal under Federal Law since the 1930s.  For decades, advocates have called for legalization – a chorus which has risen over recent years.  On principle we have long agreed that Marijuana ought to be legalized, regulated, and taxed - more or less like alcohol and tobacco.  The fact that Colorado and Washington have legalized cultivation and possession of marijuana, with benefits which have outweighed adverse effects, further bolsters the case for legalization.   The snag with the amendment offered by Responsible Ohio is that it would restrict the cultivation and sale of Marijuana to a small group of investors – effectively giving them a monopoly over all but those who purchase a permit to grow a limited number of plants for strictly personal use.  For this reason, we urge a No vote on Responsible Ohio’s irresponsible amendment.  Then, we advise advocates for legalized marijuana go back to the drawing board and craft a legalization amendment more in the spirit of those from Colorado and Washington.

Cuyahoga County:

Issue 8 - Cuyahoga County Arts tax renewal: The so-called “sin tax” collects money from the sale of cigarettes (30 cents per pack).  Some have complained that this tax is regressive and amounts to “corporate welfare for the Arts.”  No one is being forced to smoke, and smoking cessation programs have never been so available or affordable.  If keeping the tax persuades one smoker that their habit has become too costly and that they should quit, then renewing the tax has merit - with support for the arts a worthy fringe benefit.  Making cigarettes more affordable by eliminating the tax benefits no one, except for tobacco farmers and corporations like Altria and R. J. Reynolds.  So eliminating the tax is its own form of “corporate welfare”.  The levy has raised over $125 million since 2008, which was resulted in over 1,200 grants through Cuyahoga Arts and Culture to more than 300 organizations within the County – not just large organizations like the Cleveland Orchestra and Cleveland Museum of Art, but to smaller entities like the Near West Theatre which has used the funds to engage with low income kids.  With the crucial role the Arts have played in drawing visitors and residents to the county, and the importance of maintaining Cleveland’s status as a cultural center, we strongly favor its renewal.

Issue 9 – Proposed Charter Amendment: This will amend the County charter to require the County Audit committee consist of President of Council (or Council member appointed by the President), four residents with auditing experience – along with the County Executive and Fiscal Officer.  We favor passage of this amendment. 

South Euclid Levy:

Issue 102 - Road Tax Levy Renewal: Anyone who has driven in South Euclid, a community whose roads receive more use than most other suburbs, knows our roads need continuous maintenance.  The Road Levy Renewal is not a tax increase, merely a renewal of an existing levy and we endorse its passage. 

South Euclid Charter Amendments:

South Euclid, like most other communities, periodically updates its charter to meet the needs of changing times.  Here are the proposed amendments with our endorsements:

Amendment 103 changes pronouns in South Euclid’s charter from male to gender neutral.  The original language was doubtless drafted by men, and back in the day when women were supposed to confine themselves to birthing, cooking, and housework.  While some may feel this is a trivial matter not worth bothering over, it should be noted that the Founding Fathers strove to use gender neutral language in the American Constitution.  The current verbiage is an embarrassment and needs to change.  We favor passage of this amendment.

Amendment 104 changes the law director’s term from two years to four years.  Some background: for decades, South Euclid's law director has been appointed by the mayor, with council having no say.  In 2012, an amendment requiring council confirmation was drafted by a "committee" of two council people, their spouses, and a friend - placed on the ballot, and greatly trumped.  As the law director is an appointed, not elected position, requiring city council to confirm the appointment every four years is more logical, as it is concurrent with the mayor's term.  Therefore, we support this amendment.

Amendment 105 lowers the signature requirement for charter amendments to be on the ballot, from 10% of the total electorate to 10% of those who participated in the last election.  The proposed change would bring South Euclid in line with the Ohio Constitution, and would also lower barriers to participatory democracy.  We favor its passage.

Amendment 106 would bar elected officials from serving on future charter commissions, except the Mayor and Council President who could serve in an advisory position.  I can see why people feel the passage of this Amendment would encourage private citizen participation.  The sad reality is evidenced by what happened last year, when a very poor selection of private citizens was offered on the ballot – only two of whom I could bring myself to endorse (neither of whom I should have endorsed in retrospect).  Voters should have the freedom to elect anyone they want to the commission – from private citizen to Mayor to County Councilor.  We oppose this amendment.

Amendment 107 would require elected officials to sign a conflict of interest statement each year, and to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.  This is a no-brainer, and we favor its passage.