Route 8 is the major artery of our State House district. It cuts through Cuyahoga Falls, Silver Lake, Stow, Hudson, Macedonia and Northfield.

By connecting the Akron interchange with the Ohio Turnpike, it has become a critical piece of infrastructure. It holds three lanes of traffic for 18 miles.  It holds 120,000 cars per day, and it is Ohio’s busiest non-Interstate roadway. The freeway will soon undergo a 3-year rebuild project, at a cost of $48 million.

If it didn’t get constructed in a piecemeal fashion, it would be a federal interstate already. Instead, it’s a state route. And as a state route, the maintenance obligations for Route 8 fall on the municipalities in which it lies. And unfortunately, our communities cannot adequately exploit the freeway’s economic value, being only a state route. To an out-of-state employer, perhaps with logistical concerns, being located nearby a state route just doesn’t have the same ring as being adjacent to an Interstate.

If I am elected, I will seek to include in the 2019-20 biennial budget bill a provision to re-designate State Route 8 as Interstate 380. I will draw bipartisan support for this concept.

If the legislature forces designation of Route 8 to Interstate 380, then it will go to the federal DOT for approval. This will result in significant savings to our local governments, who no longer need to own expensive freeway equipment and can reduce training costs. It will lead to more safety for our municipal employees. Interstate 380 will assist us in economic development. An out-of-state employer’s interest will be piqued by the concept of moving within a half-mile of an Interstate. A state route? Not so much.

Unlike many of my “10 idea” proposals, this isn’t a new idea. Republican and Democrat officeholders from Akron to Macedonia have worked on this before. But I’m going to make this a priority, as an insert into the 2019-20 budget.

Now, for some inside baseball. … There’s a benefit for this district to elect a Republican to the State House. Why? Because everyone agrees that Republicans will control the State House next term (currently, it’s 66-33 Republican advantage). For the 37th District to elect a back-bench member of the minority party, it will be a setback for the region’s priorities, including Interstate 380. As a Republican, I will urge our next Speaker that this provision needs to be included in the budget–and I believe he will listen.

Here are my notes from last night’s city council meeting:

Downtown Stow – By a 6-1 vote (Adaska), Council agreed to move forward to seek proposals on developing a Downtown Stow. You can view the bid package by clicking here -> (18 0917-Request For Proposals-Draft-wAppendix (1)).

Bob Adaska voted no, stating that he wants to preserve the greenspace. I think we all want to preserve the greenspace, but we also want it to be usable. I don’t see people going onto the City Center property to spend recreational time. We could change that.

To address some frequently asked questions:

What’s next? Sometime in November, we will review any proposals we receive, and we will seek extensive public comment on them. After 3 readings, we will choose one (or none). This project has the potential to define our city for decades. It has the potential to affect quality of life for tens of thousands of people. I want it to be done right.

How does this impact the SKiP park rebuild? If we link up with a developer, we may ask the developer chip in on the several hundred thousand dollars that are required. If we don’t link up with a developer, we can then press forward with obtaining a rendering of the new playground and collecting donations. Either way, SKiP is getting rebuilt.

How much taxpayer money will this cost? We do not anticipate using significant city money. In fact, that’s why we are bringing in a developer, who will use its own funds.

Why are high-end rental units being considered? There’s no such thing as a free lunch. I anticipate that the developer’s plans will include some high-end rental units, which are necessary for the project to be financially enticing to a developer. If the project ultimately contains high-end rental units, it won’t be because the city wants them. It will be because the project cannot move forward without them. It’s way too early to determine how many units, if any, will be included.

Issue 1 – Last week, I came out in opposition to Issue 1. At last night’s meeting, the entire city council joined me in a formal resolution. Law Director Zibritosky persuasively demonstrated how Issue 1 is bad for criminal justice, bad for rehabilitation, and bad for law enforcement.

If Issue 1 is passed, you won’t get more than a misdemeanor (i.e., no significant jail time) for possessing enough fentanyl to kill 10,000 people. At that point, we are not talking about drugs; we are talking about a weapon of mass destruction.

Issue 1 gets a “A” for having its heart in the right place, but an “F” for execution on that plan.

Route 8 – Starting Monday, ODOT will begin to mill down Route 8 North, from Graham Road to the Ohio Turnpike. The speed limit will be 55 MPH. Thankfully, it will be 3 lanes for winter, and the heavy construction will begin next year.

Another positive note: Over the next 6-8 weeks, they will begin installing traffic signals at the Seasons Road exit. For anyone who has waited to get off Route 8 at Seasons Road during rush hour, you’ll understand the importance of that.

Zoning legislation – Two weeks ago, Council rejected my legislation to allow a property owner to rebuild a property that is a non-conforming zoning use, after the property’s involuntary destruction. Put another way, it’s my opinion that you should get to rebuild if a fire destroys a duplex that was built before duplexes were deemed improperly zoned in that neighborhood. It’s a matter of basic fairness. It also helps save our administrators time and taxpayer dollars, as lenders commonly need assurances before loaning money secured by a property that is a pre-existing, non-conforming use.

Two weeks ago, we needed one additional vote, and didn’t have it. But I implemented a seldom-used procedure known as the motion to reconsider, which allows a councilmember to change his/her vote in the meeting that immediately follows the meeting at which the original vote was taken. Brian Lowdermilk made the motion to reconsider his “no” vote, and Bob Adaska also voted “yes.” Ultimately, the legislation passed last night by a 7-0 vote.

Next meeting – Council will meet next on October 11.