Fate of controversial Whitehall development's tax abatement could end up in voters' hands
WHITEHALL, Ohio (WCMH) — Whitehall voters will now have the chance to vote on a controversial tax abatement to allow for the construction of Fairway Cliffs.
Opponents of the upscale townhome development protested outside Whitehall City Hall before the meeting Tuesday night, where there was a lot of back-and-forth discussion between the city council and city attorney.
Columbus officer confronts school board after being denied access to school
One resident said she was excited over the decision, but feels the work isn't over just yet.
'So if there is doubt, we have three readings to rectify whatever issues there are and I'm saying what is the point of pushing something through when we aren't even sure or some of us don't have the understanding, it's not clear,' said one council member.
In April, Whitehall City Council approved three tax breaks for the nearly 50-unit Fairway Cliffs proposal. Opponents then started referendum petitions, which, with enough valid signatures, puts issues on the ballot. After about 20 minutes of discussion, council members voted 6-1 to send the tax abatement question to the November ballot.
'We're happy with the city council and their vote and we're excited about Nov. 4 and really want the public to come out and have their voice heard,' Whitehall resident Holly Stein said.
Hilliard, Grove City helping solve housing shortage in central Ohio
Council has supported the Fairway Cliffs plan and previously approved a 100-percent tax abatement for the development's first 15 years.
'That's where we feel this is not worth it,' Stein said. 'We have many other projects in the City of Whitehall. We have Rockwell District. We have Norton Crossing. Where is the development going forward on those? We want to spend our energy and our time and our resources, our valuable tax dollars on those properties.'
Residents learned on May 7 that the petitions filed were valid. That same day, city council allowed developers from Fairway Cliffs to submit tweaks to the plan, but residents said that that move violated citizens' rights.
'Once you have a referendum, petitions found to be sufficient, you can take no action against those, so we are satisfied on one side, but we still have some more work to do on the other side in trying to get the motion to reconsider dropped,' Stein said.
Horror museum featuring haunted objects, 'last meal' restaurant coming to Ohio
Developers have until June 17 to submit a new proposal to council. If it passes with a large majority, council can use an emergency clause to override the referendums.
A statement from the Whitehall mayor's office reads, in part, 'The mayor's office and the City of Whitehall welcome all public engagement in all forms and celebrate citizens exercising their civic rights.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
Bloomberg
34 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Why Steel Users Don't Make More of a Fuss About Tariffs
Iron and steel mills employ about 85,700 people in the US. That's less than half as many as in 1990 but slightly more than in 2016 and 2017. Have the increased tariffs on steel imposed by Donald Trump starting in March 2018, partly continued by his successor Joe Biden and just this week ratcheted by Trump to 50%, played a role in this improvement? Yes, probably. Employment in US iron and steel mills and ferroalloy manufacturing fell after George W. Bush increased steel tariffs in 2002, albeit more slowly than in the preceding two years, so there are clearly forces at work apart from tariffs. Still, the sector's jobs gains after March 2018 were impressive. Employment was up a seasonally adjusted 6,300, or 7.7%, as of July 2019. It began falling after that, but in February 2020 — just before the Covid-19 pandemic sent steel demand and production plummeting — the gain was still 3,800. This March, employment was 3,400 higher than in March 2018.
New York Times
34 minutes ago
- New York Times
Musk vs. Trump, and a Surge in Whooping Cough
Hosted by Tracy Mumford Produced by Will Jarvis and Ian Stewart Edited by Ian Stewart and Tracy Mumford Featuring Tyler Pager and Teddy Rosenbluth Trump and Musk's Unlikely Alliance Breaks Down in Rapid and Public Fashion, by Tyler Pager and Theodore Schleifer After Trump and Xi Speak, U.S. and China Agree to Revive Trade Talks, by Ana Swanson and David Pierson Israel Armed Palestinian Militia to Fight Hamas, Officials Say, by Aaron Boxerman and Patrick Kingsley Whooping Cough Is Surging. Do You Need Another Shot?, by Teddy Rosenbluth Land Snorkeling? Townsizing? A User's Guide to the Latest Travel Lingo., by Elaine Glusac Tune in, and tell us what you think at theheadlines@ For corrections, email nytnews@ For more audio journalism and storytelling, download the New York Times Audio app — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.
