In a recent act of benevolence, Ohio University is considering leasing 10 acres of prime riverfront property to a Columbus developer for the construction of a retirement community. In exchange for this real estate, the university would receive an insane amount of money -$1, to be exact. OU claims that the donation of this land is for the common good of the area, but it is hard to believe that OU would agree to such an altruistic deal. This plan does not serve the best interests of the university, the students or the city. The university's heart might be in the right place, but it is irresponsible for any cash-strapped institution to give away its assets, especially when it gives essentially free land to National Church Residences and non-profit organizations worth about $600 million. The $1 yearly rent for this land is a symbol of the university's generosity, but being generous isn't the same as being just plain foolish with your money. Even if OU leased the land for 10 percent of its value, it would be a steal for the church, and OU could have a little pocket change just in case something comes up.
Compounding the financial implications of the deal are environmental risks that have not been properly assessed. Not only would the city lose a significant amount of public property on the river, but the deal involves building on the city's flood plain. Historically, Athens has been prone to flooding, leading to the Hocking's rerouting many years ago. Common sense says it is unwise to build a home on the sand, and it's downright ignorant to put a retirement complex on a flood plain. Another problem with the plan is that Athens City Council would have to pass an ordinance that makes the retirement home exempt from meeting current building regulations. This sets a dangerous precedent, which might allow for the building of substandard or unsafe structures. Is the only way to attract new businesses to give them free land and to cut them slack on building regulations?
In response to the opposition toward this plan from county residents and local property owners, the church has said that without such a generous lease, the project would not be feasible. Yet if there is not enough demand to support this new retirement home without giving a donation of land, then there is not a big enough need for it. The only thing worse than having such an establishment flood would be to have it sit at half capacity and slowly fall apart. The city is not big enough to support this kind of growth, and though some would benefit, it is not acceptable to put the desires of a few over the needs of the majority. Unless the deal can be restructured to benefit all parties involved, it needs to remain as simply a nice idea.
General answers, specific concerns
In a lopsided decision, the Supreme Court gave police officers more power when arresting certain suspects. The 7-2 ruling extends the authority to search a parked vehicle to officers when arresting the driver or passenger if they are nearby the vehicle. Previously, power to conduct such a search when making an arrest was only permitted if the suspect was inside the vehicle. Theoretically, this would allow officers to better control potentially dangerous situations and to get more criminals off the street. But the guidelines for this new power are much too vague. There is no definition of how far from a vehicle an arrest could be made, nor is there a time frame for the amount of time an officer could wait before searching the vehicle. Without clearly defined limitations, the police will possess even more power than they currently do and there is too large of a chance for civil-rights abuses.
In this day and age, there are far too many questions about the legality and ethics that police officers follow while on the job. However, it is important to note that such officers are a minority amongst the police, but nevertheless officers' integrity is suspect to criticism. The court's ruling now sets the precedent for these kinds of searches and re-affirms the legality of the powers that police officers in those situations wield. But the court needs to do more than just make a decree from its lofty perch; it needs to outline the exact guidelines and their implementation to ensure that individual rights are protected.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
