Terms Of The Deal

Commentary By YesMan

The dispute about supplying sewer and water utilities to the Owens Corning property is really about the terms of development, not over who will supply sewer service. Both Granville and SWL have the technical capability and the willingness. The terms of the deal are complex - use, density, tax rates, tax abatements, infrastructure improvements, etc. The deal cannot be worked out until Owens has a firm plan.

Even then, it will be difficult because Owens isn't the whole story. A sewer line on Columbus Road opens that entire area up for massive development. Those residents need to be consulted. Even without development, many of those could be forced to hook into the sewer line - at a big tap-in fee - by Ohio EPA. In addition, SWL at the border has huge implications for development all along the Village entrances. The current development proposals require a whole range of things - filling in flood zones, adding businesses that require new roads, new lanes on Main Street, etc. Not to mention broader environmental and aesthetic considerations, as well as the schools.

These issues are all interconnected. Granville's bargaining power rests, to a large extent, on its authority to grant sewer service. The effort by Trustees' and developers to get sewer service to the site and THEN negotiate is a shrewd move from their standpoint. Strip Granville of the bulk of its negotiating power, then say, "Let's negotiate."

The Trustees have done everything behind closed doors for a long time, as if Granville is their Private Club. So while I respect your motivations and agree that open discussion is the answer, the terms of the discussion are all important. Granville's Comprehensive Plan is the mechanism by which these issues are settled. The Trustees participate in the Plan as equals with the Village and pay their share. The Plan includes public hearings, many meetings, a scientific community survey, etc. The Comprehensive Plan IS our discussion. The Trustees decision to blow it off because developers want things not allowed is a failure of leadership, not a failure of community involvement.

What we're talking about here is a business deal. Millions of dollars - indeed, tens of millions of dollars - are at stake. Developers play hardball. They're working behind the scenes with Trustees representing their interests. It's a smart strategy in most places. But Granville has smarts, money and a long history of smart planning that evens the playing field, so the Pataskalization of Granville is far from automatic. This frustrates developers. After all, it works everywhere else.

The chance of SWL serving Owens and River Road is close to nil. Litigation, contentious elections, regulatory hurdles, etc. will stop it. This is not good for Granville. But this is not about singing kum-ba-ya. It's hard-nosed manvuering over millions of dollars and the future of Granville.

You are absolutely correct that we should be talking openly, broadly and honestly now. But in reality, the developers and Trustees want to play their hand first. That's why they won't withdraw the SWL request. In fact, the secret strategy would have been brilliant if this blog hadn't discovered this SWL grant request. The Trustees would have had the sewer line funded and approved without anyone even knowing it was under consideration.

The Trustees set the direction where this appears to be heading - not the Village or the Comprehensive Plan or the Granville Press. If Granville was the most important concern, the Trustees would withdraw the request as a good faith gesture and open their ears. If developers are the most important concern, they will play out the hand. Does it strike you as odd, Christopher, that you've effectivelly called a public hearing at the July 9 Trustees meeting, rather than the Trustees doing it?

I won't be there. It's pointless to speak after decisions are made and harmful because it legitimizes the illusion that the Trustees are listening.

Forgive my cynicism, but I think we know which side the Trustees are on. Wes may "prefer" Granville. But what he "insists" upon is that the developer's terms are met. What are those terms? We don't know because other than vague insinuations that the Village is being unreasonable, no specifics are ever offered. I suspect Wes doesn't know the specifics or knows that, if presented to the public, the public will not like these developer requests. The ones we do know about would have little public support - filling in a flood zone on Weaver Road, putting a drive-thru restaurant at River Road and Main Street, having taxpayers build a road to new development, etc.

The Trustees have permitted no public discussion whatsoever on development issues. Every detail has to be discovered through public records requests or documents filed with other governmental agencies. The Trustees need to make a good will gesture - cancel the SWL grant request - if they expect the public to engage.

Communities that successfully handle thorny issues like this often use a charette process. The Comprehensive Plan is used to set the broad vision. A charette process seeks to handle a specific problem. For example, how should the Owens Corning property be redeveloped?

Here's an explanation on the charette from the Federal Highway Administration, which sometimes uses it on highway projects. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/charrett.htm

This would work in Granville. It requires everyone coming to the table, everyone's concerns being given weight and a willingness of everyone to give up something. It's not in the Trustees' culture of secrecy and backroom dealing to open the doors and windows of government. But we can dream, can't we?