I’ve exchanged several messages with Mark Luetke, a challenger candidate for Sylvania City Council, regarding his position on the Lathrop House, eminent domain, and Issue 16. I’ve concluded from his responses that Mr Luetke would be a Councilman we friends of limited government can support, and I encourage a vote for Mr Luetke on the upcoming City Council ballot, in addition to votes for Borell, Flynn, and Hayman.

Mr Luetke’s position on the matter is much more nuanced than the short Toledo Blade article I referred to would suggest. He doesn’t personally support Issue 16, but has refrained from issuing a public position on the matter as part of his campaign, from a consideration for his current elected post as a member of the Sylvania school board, and his belief that it's not appropriate for an elected official to try to influence public support in either direction. I share this belief. I’ve concluded from our correspondence that Mr Luetke’s intention would be to honor the spirit of the voters’ will, as reflected in their vote on Issue 16, regardless of his own opinion of the Issue.

Part of Mr Luetke’s objections to Issue 16 as it stands is that whether it’s approved or not, it won’t really represent a permanent solution to the dispute. I wrote the other day about one additional source of delay the City might introduce, regardless of passage of Issue 16 (rejection of St Joseph’s zoning permit). And Mr Luetke doesn’t support eminent domain as an end to itself, preferring a negotiated solution to actual seizure of the property.

It’s clear from what he writes that there is still considerable scope for discussion of the matter, and that Ms Sears’ proposal to reconstitute the City’s negotiating team with the idea of actually reaching a solution need not have been fruitless. That the Gang of Four rejected it suggests that they would rather seize the property than negotiate a solution; although Mr Luetke doesn’t support Issue 16 his preference for negotiation over appropriation of the land makes his candidacy far preferable to any of the incumbents who are up for re-election.

I appreciate Mr Luetke’s preparation of a thoughtful reply to my inquiry; which, incidentally, was provided promptly in response to my request. Mr Luetke was also kind enough to grant permission for me to post his replies in full, which are given below:

On 10/29/2003, JKS wrote:
Mr Luetke,
I am certain you've received a disproportionate number of questions regarding your position on the Lathrop House, but as I'm sure you know this is among the most controversial issues enacted by our City Council in recent memory. Consequently, for many voters, like myself, this has become largely a one-issue election.

I read a summary in the Toledo Blade of your position on the matter, and I feel it needs clarification. As I understand it, your position is essentially that whatever solution is finally implemented should above all be a negotiated solution, and that satisfying this requirement is actually more important than whatever that compromise may happen to be.

From what I've read, a compromise solution which could be negotiated seems reasonably readily available by implementing the City's original position that the house be moved. The church supports that, and from my correspondence with some of the participants in the matter, it seems that at least three Council members support moving the house in principle: Mr Kriner, Ms Sears, and Mr Backus (though I understand Mr Backus may not support the specific site proposed).

Simply calling for compromise is easier, of course, than actually reaching one. Would you, as a councilman, support the proposed relocation of the house and support abandonment of the eminent domain proceedings?

I publish a weblog called Electronic Countermeasures, at which I have written about this matter at some length, and at which I tentatively offered an endorsement of a vote for you as a challenger candidate. I have promised my readers at least a summary of your response to the above question, and I would request permission to post your response in full to my weblog.

Respectfully,

Sylvania, OH
10/29/2003

On 10/30/2003 Mark Luetke replied with an email and an attached Word document as follows:
Email:

Attached is a long-form summary of my position on the Lathrop House matter. It may be more of a statement of principles than you requested–but I think a complicated matter such as this requires a bit of background and rationale. I am not sure where you came to the understanding that a negotiated solution "is actually more important than whatever the compromise may happen to be." The context is important to help you understand that any negotiated outcome would not be acceptable to me–that I would push an outcome in the directions I describe.

I do not want to address the background at the expense of your specific questions, however. So let me be clear on the points you asked about.

First, I do not support as a first step moving the house to some of the alternate sites discussed publicly by the City (early) and the church (consistently)–that is, "behind the yellow house" at the north side of the parking lot. I believe keeping it on the Ravine is important to its historic and educational use. I could support a proposal made by several members of Council to move it to a site on the ravine in Harroun Park–as long as proper public access is provided and costs are shared beyond just the City. Or, I could support any number of other solutions that more broadly address the location of the house vis-a-vis future church plans.

Second, I do not support eminent domain as the ultimate long term solution to this issue. It was put in place originally to permit additional negotiation, but that has not happened. The litigation has become an end in itself. But I personally do not support the solution to end the eminent domain contained in the Issue 16 referendum. It prohibits any city participation for two years–tying the hands of future elected officials on a broad array of related matters. I would work to end eminent domain litigation through a negotiated process as a member of Council.

Finally, a point you did not ask about but I believe is important. I would support the will of the Sylvania voters on Issue 16 no matter what the outcome. This means–win or lose–no further legal or legislative interference from Council to change the impact of the vote. I say this because I anticipate all sorts of plans will come forward to short-circuit the outcome–and I believe the people's vote needs to stand. I have purposely not taken a public position in Issue 16 because I do not believe it is appropriate for an elected official (member of school board) to use a position to influence an outcome. But I will support the result.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions you can feel free to call me at work–although I will be in and out today. The number is [snipped]. And please feel free to e-mail me at this address in the future–I get the messages a little quicker this way.

Mark
10/30/2003

Attached document:

Electronic Countermeasures

I am pleased to respond to your questions about my position on the Lathrop House issue. Here is essentially a summary of the conversations I’ve had with dozens of residents over the past few months–which were also reflected in my comments at the League of Women Voters Candidate Forum several weeks ago.

I am basing my position on four basic concepts.

First, that St. Joseph has been badly served by the City’s lack of consistency and leadership–essentially doing a 180-degree flip-flop on its original position regarding the House. Further, only the parish knows what is best for the parish; it is inappropriate for the City to make claims about which of its solutions should be acceptable to St. Joe’s.

Second, the Lathrop House has historic value and should be preserved on a Ravine site if at all possible. I can’t imagine a situation where it should be demolished.

Third, eminent domain was initially employed by the City to buy time for further negotiations. This has not happened, and eminent domain now has become an end in itself. The community is being held hostage by the legal proceeding.

Finally, any outcome of the Issue 16 vote will likely not resolve the Lathrop House matter for good. More legal challenges, legislative initiatives, zoning hearings (as you pointed out earlier at Electronic Countermeasures), and other delays could drag on for years. The Sylvania community (and, arguably, the St. Joseph parish community) are not well served by this extended process.

Therefore, only a solution that is worked through with the agreement of all sides can end the dispute in a timely manner and allow Sylvania re-focus on critical long-term issues. Dispute resolution within the boundaries of the concepts noted earlier is where I intend to focus my attention. I have no illusion that I can do this by myself. It needs to involve productive conversations with other members of counsel, the mayor, representatives of all sides and, perhaps, use of an outside facilitator.

(I have seen this approach work a number of times during my four years on the Board of Education: the Central Elementary environmental issue, potential budget cuts in the face of a levy loss, contract negotiations with our bargaining units.)

Several other considerations should play into any collaborative approach, specifically: the need to make St. Joseph financially whole on any solution that departs from its existing land ownership and land use plan; the need to spread financial cost of any solution away from the City of Sylvania alone in favor of partnerships with other governments and non-profit organizations; and the need to assure public access to the House and Harroun Park.

My experience is that both sides in the debate have become entrenched advocates of their respective positions (which is not wrong in a ballot issue campaign.) But my intent after the election would be to use a seat on City Council to bring a swift and fair resolution to any outstanding issues – no matter which way the vote goes–and allow Sylvania to get on with its other business.
10/30/2003

On 10/30/2003, responded as follows:
Mr Luetke:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. There are a few points I'd like to follow up on briefly:

I gleaned the "compromise above all" summary from the admittedly short Toledo Blade article I linked to in my first email to you. Clearly that summary provided by the Blade was a bit superficial, which is why I thought I needed to ask you for clarification. From your responses here, it's plain that your position is much more nuanced than I was able to discern from the Blade, which was what I had hoped to learn.

I appreciate your abstention from establishing a public position on Issue 16 from a respect for your current elected post. I agree that public offices should not be used to influence voter support one way or another. And I do especially respect your intention to respect the will of the voters, regardless of your personal position on Issue 16. I do suspect that Council, as currently composed, may well attempt to circumvent the voters'will even if Issue 16 passes. That wold be an abuse of power, in my opinion.

It's interesting that you point out that the eminent domain was not originally intended to be followed to its ultimate logical conclusion. I have mixed feelings on that point: on the one hand, that means the City was not really intending to be as heavy-handed as it currently appears to be, which I guess would be preferable. But, conversely, if Council doesn't really believe they should seize the land, they are using the eminent domain tool in a situation where it would seem they themselves acknowledge it isn't appropriate. Eminent domain is a tool to acquire land for public use, not a tool to introduce a relatively open-ended delay to the process. As a supporter of limited government I find this–shall we say–creative construction of government authority somewhat troubling. Keep in mind that it costs a private party time and money to maintain two years of negotiations with the City, a cost which the City itself really doesn't incur from its part in the negotiations.

As far as some of the particular proposals of the precise new location for the house–and the sticky details of who pays for the move–these are probably best addressed after the election with the new Council. I wish you luck in the election as I conclude that you would be a Councilman friends of property rights and limited government can work with.

Thank you again for your answer to my inquiry. May I post your reply in full (without your work email and telephone number, of course) at Electronic Countermeasures?

Sincerely,

On 10/30/2003 Mark Luetke responded:

Feel free to use all or part of the response. I look forward to continuing this dialog with you after the election.

Mark