More annexation attempts by Craig Stough and Sylvania City Council. The county commissioners say that they want no part of an annexation battle, but it seems to me that the commissioners are already in one, like it or not.
I'm against annexation - I never could see any good coming from it. It seems that Stough and company can't wait for the merger, and so must continue their battle to control all of Sylvania Township.
The paraphrase 'greed beyond the dreams of avarice' comes to mind.
Here
I worked in both the city and the township of Sylvania for over thirty-four years. In that time I cannot remember when getting cooperation for a joint effort between the city and township ever came easy.
It is too bad the two communities can not come together and develop a five year plan of cooperation for such things as recreation, safety, and land development.
Both the township and the city have much to offer and together could forge a better community all the way around without giving up their identities.
"During an emergency meeting, trustees said they would send a letter to Lucas County commissioners stating their opposition to the annexation of the 19-acre property."
My single experience w/the BCC and a township issue was the LCWW, Lucas County Western Water agreement. I found that two of the three commissioners were very unreceptive to input from the townships in that matter.
That concerns me....
If the Blade article is correct it states that the Township has not paid for any of the improvements:
Mayor Stough also pointed out that the annexation would be appropriate because the city holds the lease on the property, the city has redeveloped facilities there, and the city's money makes up the operating deficit for the Centennial Terrace and Quarry, a recreational spot for swimming and dancing.
"The township has never offered to assist with Centennial Terrace," he said.
If that is accurate, then what standing would the township really have to even demand they keep the 19 acres? I understand the desire of township residents to not want to be a part of the city of Sylvania but if the township hasn't contributed during the time the city has leased this, I don't understand the basis of the townships claim.
The property is currently owned by the County and the jurisdiction is the township. In the past, the County didn't want to manage the Terrace and Quarry ... there is a contract for the management and maintenance of the facility. The reason that the township hasn't contributed to the upkeep of the facility is because of the terms of the contract.
The City leases the property and the Sylvania Area Rec District manages it. If I recall correctly, the terms of the contract call for the City to provide any funds for the facility that are needed over and above the income generated.
My recollection of some of the discussions of this issue include the position that the Commissioners should 'sell' the property to provide a steady source of income for the recreational services - that somehow it is the role of the BCC to provide a steady source of income for a non-profit organization (the SAJRD) if they are provided recreational services for the county.
There was also some discussion about the developer who wants to develop the corner - and that the best way to transfer the county asset for this purpose would be to 'sell' it for $1 to the SAJRD who would then be able to sell a portion for a significant sum (I believe the discussion was around $1-1.5 million). Note - there were some questions about the true value of the land - why the County would get only $1 but the SAJRD would get $1 million ...
There was also some discussion about the fact that the Sylvania School Board owns part of the property under discussion.
The resolution to sell this property was before the BCC in December but was delayed due to some of these issues...