Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public pushes back on plan to donate shuffleboard courts to Forward Paths; ethics complaint cited
Summary
Multiple residents, including leaders of the Leesburg Shuffleboard Club and the Villages' players, urged the commission to pause a plan that would demolish the city's shuffleboard courts and donate the parcel to Forward Paths Foundation for transitional housing, raising concerns about equity, senior amenities and a perceived conflict of interest.
At the Aug. 11 public comment period, a series of speakers urged the City Commission to reconsider a proposed donation or reuse of the Leesburg Shuffleboard Courts (LSC) property for transitional housing proposed by Forward Paths Foundation.
Key concerns raised: Several speakers said Forward Paths' board includes relatives of a sitting commissioner and said they had filed an ethics complaint; they argued that the project would disproportionately benefit a very small population while removing a long‑standing senior recreation facility that serves tournaments and recreational tourism. "Public trust demands impartiality and personal ties risk undermining that trust," said Steve Clark, identifying himself as a resident at 109 South Lake Drive and urging the commission to pause the process and consider alternatives.
Community impact: Speakers emphasized the courts' role in bringing visitors and tournament players to Leesburg and said the shuffleboard club operates as a community group that organizes multiple meets each year (club president Gail Howell said the club hosts up to 100 competitors). A petition drive to save the courts was described as gathering substantial signatures; petition volunteers reported wide support from downtown businesses and customers.
Alternatives requested: Commenters asked the commission to explore alternate properties, some said three parcels had been offered and declined, and several asked the commission to solicit proposals from area nonprofits or to delay a donation decision until broader public input and site options are considered.
Outcome at meeting: City staff said public comment items would be referred or scheduled for consideration at a future meeting. No final action on the Forward Paths proposal occurred at the Aug. 11 meeting; a petition and ongoing community outreach were referenced by multiple speakers.
