Letters to Editor
State Issues 2 & 3
The Ohio State Bar Association supports State It’ssue 2 and opposes State It’ssue 3 because we do not believe the Ohio Constitution should be used to implant regulatory specificities that were never intended by the framers to be included in our Constitution.
A constitution is a sacred trust that defines and protects the fundamental rights of the people. It is a contract between the people and their governmental institutions. It sets forth a framework of citizens’ rights and governments’ responsibilities, and directs our three branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the courts, about how to implement that framework.
A constitution is not intended to set forth regulatory specificities such as those contained in State It’ssue 3, including specific tax and fee schedules and other special economic benefits that can be changed only by later constitutional amendment. We firmly believe that it was never the intention of the framers of our Constitution to have it cluttered with matters best left to the respective branches of government to manage.
We take no position on the merits of whether marijuana should be legalized in the state of Ohio. We have serious concerns, however, with the manner in which such legalization would occur. That is, we do not believe the Ohio Constitution should be used as a vehicle to create the framework for legalizing and then regulating the production and sale of any product, whether marijuana or otherwise. Such regulatory specificities were never intended by the framers to be included in that charter of government called our Constitution. They should be left to the appropriate branches of our government to handle.
For these reasons, the Ohio State Bar Association supports State It’ssue 2 and opposes State It’ssue 3.
Ohio State Bar Association
John D. Holschuh Jr., President
Quigley Dedicated to Newbury
Glen Quigley is running for re-election for Newbury Township Trustee. He not only brings years of experience to the position, but also years of dedication to the township he loves.
One can see this evidenced by the countless ways Glen has been involved within the township and county. He has always fought for the best interests of the township and its residents.
Glen believes in protecting our property values, with his keen knowledge of zoning and its importance in preserving our low-density and semi-rural atmosphere. He understands the importance of having a plan to entice the kinds of businesses that will move the township forward.
With him, come years of conservative management of our tax dollars. A vote for Quigley would continue the path of fiscal responsibility the current trustees have been striving for.
His dedication to Newbury goes far beyond his duties as a trustee. Glen has coached youth athletics, led the fight against both an asphalt plant and the widening of Munn Road, served on many committees including the zoning board of appeals and was a 13-year member of the Newbury Volunteer Fire Department, of which he still maintains an outstanding relationship with.
I encourage you to re-elect Glen Quigley, as a vote for him is a vote for the continued progress of Newbury.
Rose Yaecker
Newbury Township
Preservation of Parks
Judge Grendell, your letter is extremely misleading to anyone who would read as you say that Ms. Hanratty “wants to undo the vote of 20,000 Geauga County residents”
There are roughly 64,000 registered voters in Geauga County. If you garnered only 20,000 votes, you have the support of less than a third of the people that live in this county. Not even close to half.
You also fail to mention that you ran unopposed. You were the only choice the voters had. By comparison Brian Johnston, whom you backed against Blake Rear in the last election, got only 9,089 votes compared to the 19,970 for Rear. Someone you backed got less than half of what his opponent got.
Given your hiring of personal friends as unqualified appointees, your poor treatment of the citizens of the county, your constant infighting with the county commissioners, I’m sure you have far less than even the one third support now.
Your comments about Ms. Hanratty and her “group of malcontents,” as you put it, says mountains about how little you have actually been listening to them. Because the Save Our Parks group has their meetings where I work, I have had the chance to be in the background for many of their functions. While not a member of their group, I have heard on numerous occasions what they want and unlike you I listened.
I’d say high on their list is preservation of the land for future generations to enjoy the parks. Their concern is not for a “Private Preserve,” as you put it, which is a politically motivated, self-serving and not to mention patently ignorant thing for you as a sitting judge to have said in the first place, but for the future generations to be able to enjoy the beauty of Geauga County and its parks.
Hardly something that would seem unreasonable if you were behaving like a sitting judge and actually listening instead of thinking of yourself and your bruised ego as always.
Rob Allen
Claridon Township
A Cause of Distress
I am a 30-year Newbury resident and am responding to the “Real Shame” opinion expressed by Judge Grendell in the Maple Leaf. I want to point out that the population of Geauga County is, I believe, approximately 94,000. If Judge Grendell received 20,000 votes in the last election, then he was elected by less than a quarter of the population, which I believe is not a strong mandate. I hope he listens to the Protect Geauga Parks group and their grievances. A grievance can be defined as a cause of distress (as an unsatisfactory working condition) felt to afford reason for complaint or resistance. The changes to the Geauga Parks have caused me great distress, and I very much want a return to conservation as a rightful place as the heart of the Geauga County Park District. Park districts were set up by the state specifically for the purpose of conservation, preservation and protection of natural resources.
Fran Cverna
Newbury Township
Legacy
Mr. Grendell and his cronies just don’t seem to understand or perhaps they have reason to not want to understand.
Protecting Geauga parks is about legacy. Do we want to leave a legacy of rich, biologically diverse woodlands, meadows and wetlands or do we want to leave a legacy of mowed grass, compacted soils and fragmented habitat?
Do we want to leave our children memories of exploration and discovery of the amazing creatures who depend on protected land in our parks or of time spent with more manmade objects?
Do we want a legacy of rich understanding that the world is made up of different, complex and sometime fragile beings, each one interrelated and important in its own way, or do we want to pass along the notion that anything we do not understand or see of immediate value to humans is expendable?
Do we want the next generation to boldly exercise their natural curiosity by exploring the woods and streams or do we want to make their outdoor experiences reflect Disneyland?
Does it not make sense to leave a legacy of understanding that there is a time and a place for all sorts of experiences, but not all of those experiences are suitable in every place.
There are some places that do not need manufactured “stuff” in order be enjoyed. Our Geauga county parks are such places. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to leave them a full and rich legacy of conservation by and for the public.
Kathryn Hanratty
Chardon Township
