We are deeply disappointed by the current administration’s continued push toward demolition without first providing the public with a transparent, thorough evaluation of the alternatives.
Recent coverage repeated Mayor Shammas Malik’s unfounded explanation that environmental constraints make demolition necessary. We recognize that the site’s environmental conditions are real and can complicate reuse. But those constraints alone do not establish that reuse is impossible.. The truth is that the public has still not seen a site-specific study showing that reuse is prohibited or comparing it fairly with demolition to make that claim after a year of asking for one.
Questions about the City’s costs and funding remain unresolved, and several of our public-records requests have gone unanswered. Residents deserve clear answers and a meaningful role in shaping what happens next. Too often, the process has been dismissive, short on the listening, professionalism, accountability, and transparency the public deserves.
City Council recently approved an ordinance authorizing up to $2 million in borrowing for economic-development projects. It passed 9–4. Public reporting says the bonds will help pay for Firestone demolition, and a City official told the Beacon Journal the $2 million covers 25% of the demolition cost. But the ordinance itself does not name Firestone or disclose a project-level allocation.
That is alarming! The City is moving forward with borrowing tied to demolishing one of Akron’s historic sites, yet the ordinance does not show the public how much is allocated to Firestone or what information supports the decision?
Thus far, the process has been so disorganized and opaque that the public cannot tell whether the City has a clear accounting of the funds. The public deserves a clear accounting of the proposed funding and the basis for it.
We are grateful to Council Members Fran Wilson, Eric Garrett, Mark Greer, and Donnie Kammer for voting no on the borrowing ordinance. We also appreciate Council Member Eric Garrett’s support for more meaningful community involvement. These advancements show that a few council members are showing up for accountability and transparency. Please thank them and write to the others who are not.
Your voices are being heard.
Ask Council to support clear disclosure of any proposed funding for the site, meaningful community involvement, and an independent comparison of demolition with stabilization, phased remediation, and potential reuse. Also ask them to keep pressing for a transparent public process before making further decisions about Firestone Plant 1.
AND *Save the date for a protest! Nov. 21st, 1 pm- 3 pm @ Firestone.
Below is a sample letter you can use and adapt. Please keep sharing the petition and asking local media to examine the unanswered questions too.
THANK YOU!
Laura
*photo credit_Ashley Martinez*
Sample letter-
Dear Council Member [Last Name],
I’m writing as an Akron resident concerned about the future of Firestone Plant 1.
I was troubled by the City Council’s recent approval of an ordinance authorizing up to $2 million in borrowing. The ordinance does not name Firestone or identify an allocation for the site, although Firestone has been discussed in connection with it. Please explain whether any of this borrowing is intended for Firestone and how the amount and purpose would be determined.
I’m also asking you to support a transparent public process before further decisions are made about the site. Residents should have a meaningful opportunity to review the information behind the City’s plans and weigh in on the options. That process should include:
Clear public disclosure of any proposed Firestone funding and its intended use.
An independent, side-by-side comparison of demolition, stabilization, phased remediation, and potential reuse.
A chance for the public to review and comment on the mitigation requirements and agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office before they are finalized.
I appreciate the council members who voted no on the borrowing ordinance and those who are pressing for more community involvement. Please continue to ask for clear answers and a process that takes residents’ concerns seriously. A cost estimate cannot substitute for a transparent comparison of alternatives.
Thank you,
(Your Name)
(Your Ward or Neighborhood)