Findlay City Council faces backlash over proposed expensive park on toxic land

During the Findlay City Council meeting held on June 17, 2025, significant concerns were raised regarding a proposed park development on a site believed to be contaminated. Community members expressed apprehension about the health risks associated with building on toxic land, particularly the potential exposure to hazardous materials like hexavalent chromium. One resident questioned whether council members would accept personal liability if anyone were to become ill due to the park's construction, highlighting the gravity of the situation.

The discussion also touched on the legal implications of moving forward with the park project while an initiative petition is pending. A letter read during the meeting urged the council to pause any actions related to land transfers or funding until after the upcoming November election, citing constitutional protections for voters. This sentiment reflects a broader concern about transparency and accountability in local governance.

Another resident, Katie Erickson, voiced her opposition to the park project, arguing that Findlay already has an adequate number of parks—50 in total across Hancock County, exceeding the recommended ratio of parks to residents. She emphasized the need for prioritizing maintenance and improvements to existing parks rather than investing millions in a new one. Erickson called for greater public involvement in decision-making, suggesting that taxpayers should have a say in how their money is spent.

The council's approach to park funding and development was scrutinized, with some members expressing frustration over the lack of formal votes on significant expenditures. Concerns were raised about whether the council had adequately engaged with the community regarding the park's design and budget, particularly in light of the substantial financial commitment involved.

In conclusion, the meeting underscored a growing tension between community members and city officials regarding the proposed park project. As discussions continue, the council faces pressure to address public health concerns, ensure transparency, and prioritize the needs of existing parks before committing to new developments. The outcome of the upcoming election may further influence the direction of these initiatives and the council's relationship with constituents.