College and town sparred prior to city council’s vote

By Douglass Dowty and Josh Keating

With both sides wary of the upcoming Union Street housing vote in mid-January, tensions flared between city and College officials as each accused one-another of demanding a “quid pro quo” or an implied exchange of favors to secure the outcome of the city council’s vote.

The motion to grant rezoning for the project passed, 5-1, on Jan. 20, but questions still remained as to the seriousness of the communication breakdown during this period.

New information has come to light that stresses the depth of the fissure between the College and town prior to the city council vote.

On Jan. 20, city council chair Dan Gardner read an impassioned critique to city council in which he depicted relations between the city and College as “feudalism.”

Gardner told the Review on Thursday that he wrote the five-page critique based on legal advice and his own “sense of fair play.”

In his Jan. 20 reading, Gardner highlighted the resignation in the council’s vote in favor of the Union Street rezoning, while commenting on the “impasse” in College/town communication. He called the tactics used by the College leading up to the Union Street vote a “win-at-all-costs and a warlike strategy.”

Gardner went on to say that the College had erred in “drawing an inference between two separate things” to suggest that he had tried to demand a potentially illegal quid pro quo.

The quid pro quo in question related to Gardner’s support at a Jan. 5 council meeting of a Payment in Lieu of Taxes program between the College and town. PILOT programs are agreements reached between non-profit institutions and the towns where they are located. The institutions agree on regular payments to the town to make up for not paying property taxes. Such an agreement exists between the town and another large non-profit institution, Kendal at Oberlin, but not with Oberlin College.

Gardner had suggested earlier in the Jan. 5 meeting that a PILOT program could be initiated. On Jan. 15, the members of the council received a letter from College President Nancy Dye in which she both reaffirmed the College’s reasons for building the new housing and dismissed Gardner’s demand for a PILOT program.

“We declined to answer the question posed by Daniel Gardner about entering into a negotiation with the City about Payments in Lieu of Taxes,” the letter said. “We do not think that PILOTs are relevant to the zoning question currently before the council.”

Gardner said the issue of a PILOT program had no relation to his vote on the rezoning.

In his statement, Gardner went on to suggest that the College acted as though it had offered its own quid pro quo.

“It is possible for an observer to draw an inference between the College’s words and actions suggesting that they had given the city a quid pro quo,” he wrote in his letter. “Specifically, that if we vote affirmatively on the zoning issue, they will be generous in helping the city solve its own serious budget issues.”

Anonymous sources say that the College threatened to sue Gardner for having an illegal bias if he voted against the Union Street rezoning request.

The College admits that numerous meetings between College and town lawyers took place during the rezoning process, though the purpose of these meetings is unclear.

The College claims that the meetings were held to discuss legal issues lingering from the plans city council turned down to build on the Johnson House property last fall. The rejection, made before Gardner was elected to council, cost the College hundreds of thousands of dollars in added interest payments and lost housing revenue.

The College’s subsequent rezoning request for Union Street faced a new city council, though hardly less controversy. While the College was ultimately successful in the rezoning, the events leading up to that meeting led Gardner to question the tactics used.

The source asserted that Gardner was forced to deliver his statement at the Jan. 20 meeting to avoid the possibility of being sued by the College.

Gardner refused to comment on the possibility of being sued.

Asked if the College had ever planned legal action against Gardner, Vice President of Finance Andrew Evans said, “Certainly not. [Our lawyers] did not go there with the intention to sue.”

He would not comment on the content of Gardner’s letter, describing it as “his opinion.”

Evans described the purpose of the meeting as merely a clarification of the council’s positions on housing.

“The lawyers met to come to an understanding of the context of the Johnson House decision and look forward,” he said.

The College denied that any legal threats were made at the meetings.

“That is utterly untrue and ridiculous,” Dye said. “It’s a terrific failure to use lawyers to sue somebody. The fact that lawyers get together doesn’t mean anything about lawsuits.”

In his Jan. 20 statement, Gardner indicated the desire “to have good, direct, imaginative conversations about issues of mutual concern, not to exchange statements cleared by our attorneys. Substituting good lawyers for good community relations will not be good for either College or city.”

“Members of city council always express their opinions. That’s fine,” Vice President of College Relations Alan Moran said. “I’ve seen many times where the College and the city have disagreed. This supposed rift has been blown out of proportion.”

“I stand by my statement,” Gardner said in response to the denials. “It’s unfortunate that things got to the point where I had to ask the city’s attorney how to rebut allegations that I gave a quid pro quo.”

While not confirming that he believes legal threats were made against him as an individual, Gardner stated in his letter that, “One could interpret the fact that the College’s attorneys metwith City Solicitor Eric Severs and others to talk about rezoning case law not as a collegial exchange of legal views, but as a warning shot across the city a show of force. If we do not [approve the zoning], they will sue and name the chair of the City Council seperately in their suit.”

“If you were looking to build a case that there was some attempt to influence things behind the scenes you could make that case,” he told the Review. “My point, however, was that we shouldn’t waste time and energy reading dark motives into each side’s actions and statements. Let’s assume that any disagreements are professional not personal. Thankfully, I think we’ve reached that point now.”

The recent dynamics between the town and College has improved dramatically, according to everyone involved with the situation. All parties expressed the wish to move on, and Gardner said that he hoped past tension could be forgotten.
College officials agreed with his sentiments.

“Daniel was at our last town gown school district meeting and it was just a great meeting,” Moran said. “Everyone brought ideas and energy and I think that we’re going to continue to meet and it will be an ongoing dialogue on issues.”

“This whole business was completely ridiculous,” Dye said. “We will continue to have a perfectly fine relationship with the city.”

For his part, Gardner feels that the conflict may have led to progress on the issues affecting both communities.

“The point of my statement was to call for a different kind of relationship and that’s what we’re developing,” Gardner said. “I’ll let others decide whether my statement contributed, but the College and the town and the schools are now in a dialogue where no idea has been taken off the table.” The first joint economic development meeting was held on Feb. 20.

“The College has responded with a goodwill that makes me proud to be an alum,” Gardner said.