Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford residents urge preservation of Claritoma Park; council votes not to consider sale
Summary
After multiple public comments asking the city to preserve Claritoma Park, Milford City Council moved and passed a motion that the city will not entertain or consider selling the park at this time.
Milford City Council voted April 1 that the city will not “entertain nor consider selling Claritoma Park,” following more than 20 minutes of public comment urging preservation and improvements.
The vote came after residents described regular use of the park and raised concerns about a private inquiry the city received about purchasing the land. “It would be a loss if we got rid of it,” Stephen Oliver said. “To sell an entire park for a residential development — one person wins while the rest of us lose a public space.” Oliver gave his address for the record as 637 Keystone Drive.
Why it matters: Council members said they have discussed Claritoma Park for years, including a 2017 comprehensive-plan provision that called the site “underutilized” and suggested exploring new programming or disposal. Residents and a chamber intern urged the city to invest in signage, safety improvements and multiuse upgrades rather than a sale.
Several residents recounted personal uses and memories. Don Holcomb, 871 Garfield Avenue, said the 2017 study’s findings matched his observations and warned about engineering and access challenges if the park were turned into a flagged residential lot. “You’re actually going to create a situation where we already have some pretty intense housing,” Holcomb said, noting fire truck access and drainage concerns. James Gallagher, a Milford Miami Township Chamber intern, encouraged revitalization, citing a lack of park signage and out-of-date equipment.
Other commenters raised related concerns. Stephen Oliver and another speaker questioned whether a real estate agent who inquired about buying the park would have a conflict of interest if the land were sold. Several commenters also expressed wariness of proposals involving FC Cincinnati that they said had been discussed previously, and urged the city to protect green space.
Council action and scope: A council member moved that the city “does not entertain nor consider selling Claritoma Park.” The motion was seconded and passed by unanimous roll call. The minutes and roll calls show all present council members voting yes; the motion was described by council as effective immediately while also not binding on future councils.
Context and next steps: Multiple speakers requested improvements rather than sale: updated signage, addressing safety concerns and multiuse programming. Resident Katie Toler, 27 Apple Lane, said the park is “a forgotten park” that is mowed but not updated and asked for restoration to make it usable for her child. Council members acknowledged the public comments and said they heard residents’ requests. Mayor Evans noted the park discussion predated current staff and that no sale decision had been made prior to the inquiry.
Ending: Council repeatedly emphasized that no sale had been finalized and that the motion removed the active consideration of selling Claritoma Park. Several residents asked for follow-up on specific park improvements; council did not set a timeline in the meeting for a restoration plan but acknowledged the interest and invited continued engagement.
