At the December 17th council meeting Mayor Bivens made two erroneous statements regarding me in light of my bringing forth legislation to investigate the Whitehall police department. I felt them troubling enough to respond publicly, as they were made publicly. Firstly, there is this claim:

Firstly, just because it is spoken aloud does not give it a heft of truth. The truth is what is revealed with fuller understanding of an issue. Don’t let anyone’s surface proclamation suffice for the truth. It is patently unfair. Find the receipts.
Secondly, who does the mayor believe put me onto council, a magic genie who granted me a wish? Of course not…it was the people, those who knew full well what my feelings were on the Enclave project. If he has a beef with me being on council opposing one housing project in Ward 1, I suggest he take that up with the citizens of the Ward who put me there in the first place.
Fact #1: As long as people have children, more housing will be a necessity.
Fact #2: The citizens of a community have a right, as long as it is lawful to do so, to protest what comes into their community, both through the means they have to protest such things and to make their views known to their representatives on council, who have an obligation (within the law) to listen to those people they represent.
Fact #3: The people’s representative have an obligation to the organic nature of of the city and the citizens they represent to insist projects (to a fair degree) exemplify the community they want to build in, this is by dint of the demands of the people and anyone in government who has any kind of community vision which they’ve shared with the public (good luck on that one). The project at Maplewood and Main Streets is an example of this. It was strongly opposed by the residents of Ward 1 with strong arguments, to the extent that they assembled not one, but two petitions to bring a referendum to the polls as their means to fight the zoning change to allow for the housing development. That effort which a) encountered a roadblock from City Attorney Bivens’ office, as seen here:
State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens :: 2021 :: Supreme Court of Ohio Decisions :: Ohio Case Law :: Ohio Law :: US Law :: Justia

And b) was served up its ultimate demise by the efforts of the then council who, under the claim that the legislation (along with it’s emergency legislation attached) was being repealed so that the developer could work with the residents to come up with more amenable plans for the neighbors in Ward 1. Doing so then gave council the ability to put the kibosh on the citizen’s referendum given they’d just repealed the legislation which prompted it. That which the citizens had worked so hard to achieve. Here is video of that vote from Sept. 21, 2021:

The original legislation was 46-2021 and was introduced in May of 2021, without an emergency measure attached, which gives the citizens the ability to fight it through petitions and a referendum at the ballot. Everyone, including Ward 1 Councilor Chris Rodriguez voted yes for the zoning change for the Enclave on June 15, 2021, with the exception of Councilor Heck, who voted no. This left his constituents angered and so shared those feelings in November at the ballot box, electing me over an incumbent of nearly 20 years. When I voted against legislation for the enclave, it was due to the clear mandate as set by those in Ward 1. If we are not there to represent the citizens who not only elected us but who we are supposed to be representing, then why do we have a representative government in the first place? Look to 1776 for an answer to that.
As to housing…is it a good project? Is it ruinous to the community? Is it too tall, too dense, etc. There are many things to consider. I was excited by the recent proposal at Rosemore and Langley, it was interesting, dynamic and would be a great addition near the park but, its density to parking ratio was going to spell troubles for the neighborhood. Regardless, the project was withdrawn before we got to vote on it. So, while I am FOR housing, I am AGAINST executed/proposed housing plans that the citizens and I have a right to question for valid reasons. Simply because I say no to some doesn’t mean I say no to all. Critical thinking is responsible for that mindset.
I and others made our opinions on the matter of the Enclave clear. While in debate, opinions were shared regarding the Fairway Cliffs proposal. This is natural and should be encouraged by a government that is working for you to find the best outcome for the community, not just what the Administration and their acolytes desire.

As to the mayor’s second claim:

I said it before; the direction I heard from our city attorney was that we couldn’t investigate, despite what it states in the charter. While I awaited final confirmation on the conclusiveness of this direction (that we couldn’t investigate), I felt it was pointless to launch a single independent investigation because
a) what is the point of me, solely, asking questions which they (both the police department AND the F.O.P.) would simply supply me with their biased viewpoints and
b) if it is found that council can investigate as a body, I didn’t want to jeopardize our ability to independently investigate the matter with any possible biases which could arise while making inquiries, so…
That’s it. I was thinking of the ethical side of it. Why would we, independent of the city attorney’s legal counsel, investigate on our own, independently, while awaiting word from the city attorney as to whether we can or not? Seems impatient and disrespectful. If it turns out we can, then we as a body need to decide whether we will. If we can’t, then we can (pointlessly, in my opinion) do independent investigations and merely gather seven different opinions on the matter. However, it was my belief that an INDEPENDENT investigation on the matter had the greatest chance at finding out what the full truth of the matter was. But, we see where that went.
Thank you for your time.