LOVELAND MAGAZINE

News and Events from the Loveland, Ohio Area

Without fear or favor
Since 2004

Tag: halie rebeccaschild

A Call for Transparency in Loveland City Government

Dear Editor,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent decision by Loveland City to deny the validity of case #2024-03: 200 Railroad Avenue HPPC Appeal based upon a 3rd party filing by a concerned Loveland resident. (Demolition of home in Loveland Historic District causing uproar)

Ironically, as we debate the future of historic buildings and the little yellow house on Railroad Avenue, a ten year anniversary of the groundbreaking on Loveland Station Apartments approaches (November 12, 2014).

Just barely a decade ago, Loveland residents woke up to a massive three-story apartment complex near the train crossing in our historic two-story whistle stop town, constructed even at the expense of losing our iconic train whistle. Transparency was nowhere to be found, and residents were left angered and baffled how it happened. Some even called to tear the buildings down.

As elected officials, Loveland City Council members are entrusted with the responsibility of representing the interests of all Loveland residents, especially when they show up at public meetings. We vote for them; at the very least, we expect transparent processes.

However, in the instance of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on October 30th, we left silenced and frustrated, feeling fooled by the process. (BZA dismisses appeal making way for demolition of historic home)

We asked only for an appeal to a zoning decision to demolish this historic house in question. Yet the City, under solicitor Joe Braun, denied several concerned citizens at the scheduled public appeal meeting an opportunity to contribute factual evidence as to the historic value of the home. From our perspective, the process failed.

It is crucial that our elected officials remain responsive to the concerns of their constituents. By actively listening to the community and considering their input on historical and architectural significance of buildings to the city, the City Council can make informed decisions that benefit both present and future generations. But they didn’t listen at all.

The City’s decision to allow the appeal to precede so far as to set a specific date for the appeal review and then, at that meeting, subsequently invalidate the appeal on technical grounds was not only unfair but suggests strategic timing to obstruct an open process.

This action effectively limited the opportunity for other residents to submit further appeals prior to the deadline, undermining the very essence of a transparent and democratic processes.

Residents showed up prepared because they believe the 200 Railroad Avenue building is a significant piece of Loveland’s history. Indeed, it was acknowledged by Council Member Neal Oury at the October 22nd Loveland City Council meeting that the original brick structure remains standing and sound.

In fact, it is the only remaining brick structure just a few yards from the Little Miami Railroad tracks on Railroad Avenue.

Residents who showed up to the appeal meeting wanted to know what we’re demolishing of our remaining history as a whistle stop town. They want thoughtful deliberation as part of a transparent process. Instead, the City appeared non-responsive.

It is essential that the City conducts public meetings in a fair and impartial manner. By disregarding the concerns of residents and limiting public participation in a zoning appeal process, the City has once more set itself up for hard questions reminiscent of seven years past.

This public doubt stems from the Loveland Station Apartments development followed by the era of Mayor Mark Fitzgerald and the attempt to replace the current Loveland City Hall with a FOUR story, multipurpose building in a public-private deal, as much as we would like to forget. Residents were angry, yes, and the city hall project was kicked aside—for now.

The maneuver to deny the appeal on October 30th, while deft, was strangely reminiscent of 2017 when failure of transparent process went so far that (then) resident Neal Oury called for a public recall of mayor Fitzgerald before announcing his own candidacy for a Loveland City Council seat. But it didn’t stop there. Transparent process failed so miserably that in 2017, a resident filed a sunshine lawsuit against the City of Loveland.

How can we take a step back?

A better way forward than denying the appeal process would have included 1) any council members with longterm friendship with the owner or developer recuse himself from votes on the question of demolition, and 2) residents given an actual opportunity to present their research findings at a newly scheduled Zoning Appeals Meeting.

Why not slow down and get it right? I urge the City Council to not dig in but instead to reverse its decision to deny the appeal on October 30th before razing the historic house.

Moving forward, I hope this latest pubic disappointment serves as a reminder to Council to prioritize transparency and open communication with residents, especially when making special zoning decisions that involve any plans for multi-unit buildings. (Six, three-story apartments proposed adjacent to Nisbet Park on Loveland Bike Trail)

By fostering a more inclusive and participatory decision-making process, Loveland City Council can better ensure that residents remain mutually supportive of their many hours of earnest public service.

Sincerely,

Halie Rebeccaschild

November 9, 2024
Concerned about character, Loveland?

“Let’s talk about character, by all means.”

Halie S. Rebeccaschild is the Secretary, Loveland Community Heartbeat Political Action Committee

by Halie Rebeccaschild,

Neal Oury has offered to dedicate himself to the good of the Loveland community though public service as a city council member over the next four years. He has fought to remove those who have sought to exploit our city, selling it off without your input, and for that, he’s facing serious backlash. Many people might not have had the courage to do what he did, standing up to Mark Fitzgerald this year. People are afraid, and we can see why from the character assault on Neal Oury. It takes tremendous character to bravely face down those with very little themselves.

Many people might not have had the courage to do what he did, standing up to Mark Fitzgerald this year.

Now, he’s being accused of hiding financial difficulties he faced nearly a decade ago. Let’s talk about that.

Neal Oury filed Ch 13 bankruptcy years ago and has continued to pay his debts, overcoming a serious financial setback. That’s exemplary! His family has a proven track record of overcoming obstacles. When asked, he has responded with openness, honesty, and humility about a painful time in his life.

Previous life lessons do not necessarily create bad people.

Previous life lessons do not necessarily create bad people. In the case of Neal and Lynn Oury, it’s created warm, compassionate, community-minded survivors whose record of volunteer service in the last ten years right here in Loveland would put most people to shame. They served this community even as they worked to overcome their financial difficulties of the past.

Neal Oury is an honest and humble community-minded, public servant who has overcome challenges, which is exactly what we need leading our city going forward. He’s proven that he has the life experiences and fortitude to lead us out of the mess Mark Fitzgerald and his majority voting block on city council created. More, he’s pledged to give residents a voice by driving neighborhood representation.

I say, bring on Neal Oury for city council. Let’s see what he can do to help move Loveland forward and out of the mess of the last 2 years.

Vote Oury on November 7 with pride!

Best regards to you, Loveland neighbors.

Halie S. Rebeccaschild B.A., M.A. is the Secretary of the Loveland Community Heartbeat Political Action Committee

RP Diamond Printing & Embroidery

RP Diamond is the exclusive retailer of LOVELAND HIGH SCHOOL SPIRIT WEAR Welcome to RP Diamond Printing & Embroidery located at 370 Loveland Madeira Road.

October 29, 2017
Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC responds to Mr. Kulik

Upon scrutiny, Ryan Kulik’s arguments fail due to his oversimplification and outright error.

by Halie Rebeccaschild

Mr. Kulik made the following claims at the September 12th City Council meeting, which warrant scrutiny. (Ryan Kulik: Political motivated amateurs have taken over)

Halie Rebeccaschild is the Secretary of the Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC

First, In his argument that certain sitting City Council members are “anti-business,” Kulik stated, “Legally required public hearings were voted down by this Council to stop positive business growth.” It appears that Mr. Kulik has over simplified the matter, as Council has stopped a public hearing from proceeding only in one case this year, that of the city hall project. The city never moved to a public hearing because residents expressed outrage at multiple City Council meetings in May and June of this year over the planned demolition of Loveland City Hall. In fact, On May 9th, City Council deadlocked on the nature of public engagement. After Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) President Jay Stewart recommended involving residents and holding a work session with Ken Geis, Vice Mayor Angie Settell immediately motioned for a public hearing (1). Such a move would have then fulfilled the legal requirement for a single hearing prior to transferring the city hall property to the autonomous CIC, ensuring demolition of our city hall building in July, as planned.

Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice Mayor Angie Settell, and Pam Gross voted no on these public engagement forums.

Residents had expressed great concern about the city hall project moving too quickly, which may be seen in both April and May City Council meeting minutes. Rob Weisgerber, Kathy Bailey, and Ted Phelps responded to residents by opposing the vote to immediately move to fulfill the single public hearing requirement. Then, Council Member Rob Weisgerber motioned for no less than three resident engagement sessions, which would have brought residents into the planning process on either a 2-story, 2.5 story, or 4-story building. Mayor Mark Fitzgerald, Vice Mayor Angie Settell, and Pam Gross voted no on these public engagement forums, while Council Members Rob Weisgerber, Kathy Bailey, and Ted Phelps voted yes. The deadlocked votes reflect a difference in how much emphasis was placed on resident engagement.

Not a single resident has come to address Council to demand that the city hall demolition move forward, so who does Mr. Kulik represent?

Mr. Kulik spoke of the public hearing requirement completely out of context of the planned demolition of City Hall, and in such a way that suggested a law was somehow broken in slowing down the city hall project for residents to give necessary sanction. Indeed, if the public hearing had occurred as pushed by Mark Fitzgerald, Angie Settell, and Pam Gross, the transfer of our city hall to the CIC would have been final. Once in possession of the CIC, residents would have had no further input. This process would have prevented residents from thoroughly engaging in the planning for our new, city hall building in Old Loveland. Instead of anti-business, as Mr. Kulik suggests, Rob Weisgerber, Ted Phelps, and Kathy Bailey’s vote for multiple hearings reflect their duty as public servants to residents of Loveland. Residents have been relieved that the planned demolition and any repurposing of city hall will wait until after elections when residents will have their say with their votes. Not a single resident has come to address Council to demand that the city hall demolition move forward, so who does Mr. Kulik represent?

Next, Mr. Ryan Kulik went on to claim that City Council acted wrongly by cancelling Mr. Stansel’s contract. Kulik said, “What is it Mr. Stansel did wrong? I can see where council should have had the discussion on his services, but we never had that discussion. Rob Stansel was hired by the City Manager, not council. Stop lying. This is what the city manager does. The council should have had a chance to vote on his contract when the spending limit was exceeded. We never had this discussion.”

Yet again, Mr. Kulik is mistaken.

Yet again, Mr. Kulik is mistaken. City Council did have a discussion about cancelling Rob Stansel’s contract just prior to their vote that terminated it on May 9th. Mr. Kulik asks, “What was illegal about the contract? Was it because the spending limit was exceeded? Okay, I understand that.” If Mr. Kulik understands that City Council voted after a discussion to cancel the contract because it violated the City Manager’s spending authority, then what’s his agenda? Why would he want Council to violate our city charter?

Then, Mr. Kulik goes on to say, “[Stansel] secured over $600,000 for, I believe, the Chestnut property.” Not exactly. The “letter of intent” brought by Mr. Stansel to the city died upon expiration on May 5th, 2017, four days prior to City Council voting to terminate Stansel’s contract on May 9th (2,3). Perhaps Mr. Kulik should speak with City Manager Dave Kennedy about why the offer wasn’t pursued. Because at this point, it appears that Mr. Kulik is speaking beyond his knowledge and expertise.

it appears that Mr. Kulik is speaking beyond his knowledge and expertise.

Last, Kulik goes on to say, “[Rob Stansel] was working on the Christman property that we’ve heard a lot about.” Yet, again, Mr. Kulik references a development project that brought Loveland residents out in droves against it. Residents from the Brandywine and Butterworth Glen neighborhoods overflowed Loveland City Hall at the public hearing on June 13th when City Council was expected to vote on an ordinance to transfer city land to the Community Improvement Corporation that would have then been sold to Drees Co. and ultimately culminated in a Drees Homes development of 10 acres nearby. Apparently, the residents of those neighborhoods believed the city years ago when it claimed to have bought the Christman property to be a park, and they weren’t too excited about the pending development deal. That’s why the city did not transfer the land to the Community Improvement Corporation, and the private deal between the developer and the commercial real estate firm dissolved.

Upon scrutiny, Ryan Kulik’s arguments fail due to his oversimplification and outright error. In any regard, I appreciate him bringing up three very important topics to Loveland residents, and hope everyone registers to vote by October 10th and comes out to vote this November 7th.

Halie Rebeccaschild is the Secretary of the Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC.

Citations:

(1) Loveland City Council Meeting, May 9, 2017. Available at http://www.lovelandoh.com/public-meetings

(2) Loveland City Council Meeting, June 13, 2017. Available at http://www.lovelandoh.com/public-meetings

(3) SqFt Commercial Letter to Mark Fitzgerald and Rob Stansel titled “Chestnut Land Document,” 4/27/2017.

Take Home Tano is about fresh, wholesome food for the frenzied family.

September 17, 2017
[VIDEO] Interview with Halie Rebeccaschild after turning in Fitzgerald recall petitions for 2nd time.

by David Miller

Norwood, Ohio – LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV broadcast live on Friday from the Hamilton County Board of Elections when the Loveland Community Heartbeat Political Action Committee returned to again submit petitions to place the recall of Loveland Mayor Mark Fitzgerald on the November ballot. Fitzgerald has two years remaining on his four-year term and the group wants Neal Oury to run head-to-head with the Mayor so Oury can serve the remaining two years.

Slightly more than 1,800 signatures were gathered in a week on a revised petition after their first signature drive proved unsuccessful because of insufficient language on the petition. Previously, more 2,054 signatures were gathered and submitted on July 22. In a press release issued earlier in the day Spokesperson Halie Rebeccaschild said, “It was a significant setback, but it didn’t last long. An astounding 1,800 signatures were collected over the past week.”

The release elaborated, “To put that in perspective, the initial round of 2,050 recall signatures was collected over a nine-week period, for an average of 225 signatures per week. The second signature collection averaged more than 225 signatures per day. “In the end, residents will have their voices heard at the ballot box in November,” said Rebeccaschild.

Fitzgerald was given an opportunity to comment on the second set of petitions being submitted to the Board of Elections but did not respond. He has also not responded to questions Loveland Magazine emailed to him about the allegations being made about him.

This interview with Rebeccaschild was conducted just after she turned in the new batch of signatures.

You can view the “Live” broadcast of the petitions being presented by going to Loveland Magazine’s Facebook Page.

Aslo read:

[Video] Fitzgerald Re-Call Petitions delivered to Elections Board

August 5, 2017
Loveland Magazine will broadcast this event “Live” on Facebook today

Loveland Magazine will broadcast this event “Live” on Facebook today at 2 PM from the Hamilton County Board of Elections.

“One week after petitions for the recall of Loveland Mayor Mark Fitzgerald were rejected due to issues with the wording on the petition, Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC (LCHPAC) will be back at the Hamilton County Board of Elections to once again submit recall petitions. This round of petitions includes approximately 1,800 signatures of Loveland residents collected in just one week.”

August 4, 2017
[Video] Fitzgerald Re-Call Petitions delivered to Elections Board

by David Miller

Loveland, Ohio – Mayor Mark Fitzgerald’s Council term does not end until December 2, 2019, however about 2,054 signatures on a recall petition were delivered today to the Hamilton County Board of [quote_box_right]Loveland Recall History

Former Councilmember Todd Osborne said, “The last recall, the only recall, was in 1984. The city had sued HUD over Loveland Pines apartment complex. City council voted to end the lawsuit the day before the ruling, after spending $35,000. A recall petition went out and was certified by the Board of Election. The majority of Council was under recall. Ron Binegar, Roland Boike, John Munnis and John Banks. Binegar resigned but after the five day window. There was a lawsuit, which the petitioners won on appeal. Council had to establish an election date, which they refused to do for several meetings, including walking out without an adjournment. They had a special meeting at 7:25 AM to name the date. All three incumbents retained their seat.[/quote_box_right]Elections to end his term two years early. Members of the Loveland Community Heartbeat PAC (Political Action Committee) (LCHPAC) said the number of signatures is about twice the number of signatures required to get the recall initiative on the ballot this November.

In a press release issued last night, LCHPAC representative Halie Rebeccaschild said, “This has been a difficult time for Loveland residents. Walking every neighborhood in Loveland to collect signatures, we have seen firsthand not only the level of distrust and disappointment throughout the community but also the high level of awareness and engagement among Loveland residents.”

According to Sherry Poland, the Director of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, now that the petitions have been delivered, the Board will begin the process of verifying signatures. She said today that she is not yet positive of the total number of signatures that are required, but the process of determining the number will also begin. The City of Loveland is in three counties, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren, and LCHPAC will need the signatures equal to 15% of the ballots cast in all three counties at the last Loveland Council election in 2015.

Poland said that if there are sufficient signatures, Fitzgerald will be notified and given five days to either resign his office or face the recall on November 7. She added that if Fitzgerald does resign, then the recall will not be on the Ballot.

If Fitzgerald does resign, council vacancies are filled by a majority of the six remaining Council members. If Council could not agree on a replacement, then Vice-Mayor Angie Settell, who would become Mayor, could appoint Fitzgerald’s replacement unilaterally. The new Councilmember would then have to run in November to retain their seat. Currently the seats of incumbents Pam Gross, Ted Phelps, Robert Weisgerber, and Stephen Zamagias will be on the ballot this fall. Fitzgerald’s resignation may open up a fifth open seat. A successful recall petition will also open up a fifth seat, but one that would be a head-to-head race against Fitzgerald. (Pleas see correction to this paragraph below.)*

If Fitzgerald does not resign, his name will appear on the fall ballot next to the name of anyone who petitions the Board to run against him. Resident Neal Oury has been calling for Fitzgerald’s resignation for several months and is currently collecting signatures to run head-to-head against the Mayor.

Fitzgerald has not acknowledged or responded to emails sent to his City and personal email accounts asking for comment. Fitzgerald was asked for his reaction of the petitions being delivered and of the recall effort in general. He was also asked if he would comment on any specific allegations made against him during the PAC’s signature gathering.

Fitzgerald was also asked if he sees the possibility of legal challenges to the recall petition, or the recall being on the November ballot. He did not respond.

Oury has already gathered more than 1,500 signatures and said he will wait to see the outcome of today’s petition submission before he will bring his own to the Board of Elections.

(This story was up-dated at 6:32 AM 7-22-17)

*CORRECTION:

Adopted Charter of the City of Loveland, Ohio

SEC. 2.03 FILLING OF VACANCIES.

Vacancies in the office of Council member shall be filled within thirty (30) days by vote of a majority of the remaining members of Council, by the selection of a person qualified as provided in Section 2.02 of this Charter. If Council fails to make a selection to fill such vacancy within thirty (30) days, the Mayor shall forthwith make the appointment. Such person so chosen shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term of the Council member whose vacancy he or she was appointed to fill. (11-5-91, 11-6-01)

See also:

Who is running for School Board and Council?

A family-owned business offering a wide variety of soft-serve specialty desserts.

July 22, 2017