Important Firestone Update! Nov. 2nd Council Meeting and Next Steps

CORRECTION: Item 7 passed 9–4

My earlier update said Item 7 had been removed from the agenda. That was incorrect. Akron City Council passed it on November 2, authorizing up to $2 million in borrowing for broadly described economic-development projects.

Here’s the serious transparency problem: Firestone was discussed in committee in connection with demolition funding, but the ordinance does not name the building or disclose an amount for the site. When we asked for the project list and any Firestone allocation, the City said it does not maintain or possess a record responsive to that request—while confirming Firestone was among the projects discussed.

So the borrowing passed, but the public still can’t see a project list or determine what share, if any, is intended for Firestone. Residents are being asked to accept a major public funding decision without basic records showing what is being funded. That is a serious failure of transparency and fiscal accountability.

I’m sorry for the confusion about the vote. Our requests remain the same: disclose the funding plan, fairly study reuse and demolition, and involve residents before more irreversible work proceeds.

Hi all,
At the November 2 City Council meeting, Council removed the proposed $2 million borrowing item from the agenda, so it didn't vote on it that night.

We don’t yet know why it was pulled, but community feedback likely played a part. At the very least, residents made it clear they were paying attention and had serious questions. Please keep that pressure up: contact your Council representative and ask them to explain why the item was pulled, and to ensure that if it returns, Firestone and any proposed allocation are clearly disclosed and discussed publicly before a vote. 

The ordinance described the borrowing broadly as funding for “certain economic-development projects.” Firestone came up in committee discussions, but the ordinance itself did not name the building or say whether or how much of the borrowing might support its demolition. This is highly problematic. The public needs to know what a major borrowing proposal could fund in order to understand and weigh in on it. Leaving Firestone out of the ordinance weakens public accountability, repeats the top-down pattern we’ve been challenging, and continues the pattern of moving decisions and funding forward before the community has clear information and a chance to shape the outcome.

At the meeting, one community member even imagined an ice-skating rink at the site. Whether or not that particular idea proves feasible, it’s the kind of community-centered possibility that deserves to be heard and explored before the future of Firestone is decided.

Progress Through Preservation is discussing next steps, including a public protest. We’re beginning to plan now and will share more details soon. If you’d like to help organize or hear about the action when details are set, please reply to this message.

Please circulate the petition again among your friends, neighbors, and community networks. The more people who speak up, the harder it is to move forward without a transparent process and meaningful public input.

We’ll continue pressing for clear information about the funding, a fair study of reuse options, and meaningful community input before final decisions are made. Thank you for standing with us and helping keep Firestone’s future in public view.

Laura