Judge Kontos paves way for HomeGoods to build

2222Thus wrote Judge Peter Kontos of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court in ruling against plaintiffs in a lawsuit that sought to block construction of a 1.2-million-square-foot distribution center in Lordstown.

The opinion from Judge Kontos should serve to dissuade the opponents of the $160 million HomeGoods project from taking further legal action.

Indeed, Judge Kontos provided a time line that shows the plaintiffs were a day late in filing their lawsuit.

The bottom line: They played a wait-and-see game that backfired.

They had pursued a referendum on the 3-2 vote by Lordstown Village Council to rezone the HomeGoods site from residential to industrial.

The special election was put on a fast track after the Ohio General Assembly approved an amendment to a bill that opened the door to a change in the schedule. As a result, voting took place Aug. 21.

It is noteworthy that the proponents of the referendum did not file any legal challenges to the General Assembly’s action, nor did they seek to stop the vote from taking place. They obviously were hedging their bets.

Let there be no doubt that had Lords-town voters overturned council’s approval of the zone changes, there would not have been a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the General Assembly’s action.

However, on Aug. 21, a vast majority – 77 percent – of the 1,331 Lordstown residents who went to the polls agreed with council’s decision to change the zoning on the seven parcels on Hallock Young and Ellsworth Bailey roads.

A day after the vote, the opponents filed the lawsuit challenging the timing of the referendum. They argued that the special legislation passed in June was illegal because it violated sections of the Ohio Constitution.

In his 11-page judgment entry after the trial, Judge Kontos wrote, in part: “Plaintiffs did not file this lawsuit until Aug. 22, 2018, the day after the special election. Only after the village and the electorate expended the time, effort and public funds in orchestrating the special election, and the electorate voted overwhelmingly in favor” of the zone changes did the plaintiffs file suit.

OPPONENTS SHOULD END FIGHT

Given the judge’s understanding of the issues in the case and his reading of the law, opponents of the HomeGoods project would do well to cut their losses.

They should disabuse themselves of the notion that they would prevail on appeal. Courts are very reluctant to go against the will of the voters.

Indeed, if they take a step back and consider the actions HomeGoods, a division of TJX Companies Inc., is willing to take to address their concerns, they could well change their minds about the project.

Their main concern has to do with the proposed location’s proximity to hundreds of residences.

Opponents have consistently argued they’re not against the huge distribution warehouse. They just don’t want it in their backyard. Many own homes in the vicinity of the 290-acre site.

They have voiced concern about dust, lights, noise, water runoff and increased traffic. They also insist other sites in the village would meet HomeGoods’ needs.

But company officials contend they aren’t interested in any other sites, which is why they’re willing to work with residents to address their concerns.

HomeGoods has offered to install noise buffers, LED lighting directed toward the building, traffic lights and a retention pond for rainwater runoff. The company also has said it would reroute a road.

As for environmental concerns, HomeGoods has committed to donating 100 acres for the buffer zone between the distribution center and the residential area. It has pledged to give $500,000 to the Lordstown Local Schools (in return for tax abatements the company is seeking), and to create opportunities for internships for area college students.

In his ruling, Judge Kontos rejected opponents’ claims that they would suffer irreparable harm as “mere speculation and conjecture” given that no site plans have been approved for the project.

His denial of permanent injunctive relief and declaratory judgment sought by the plaintiffs and his dismissal of the lawsuit should be the exclamation point on this battle that has raged for too long.

The Mahoning Valley can ill afford to chase away a company that’s willing to invest more than $100 million, hire more than 1,000 workers and promises to be a good neighbor.