The Silencing of Loveland


The Loveland City Council has scheduled an emergency meeting for Wednesday October 17th, 2018. The agenda for the special meeting consists of a second reading for three ordinances related to a private development project in the downtown area. The three ordinances are labeled as being an emergency, meaning they need six council votes, and the legislation will go into effect immediately. There is no public forum, or public hearing, scheduled for this emergency meeting. The only people who can comment on the pros and cons of these emergency ordinances are the seven members of council. No one else in Loveland will be permitted to have a voice.

The three emergency ordinances looking for passage in this emergency meeting are not new to the council agenda. They first appeared at the September 11th meeting. They were also tagged as emergencies then. I spoke in the public forum on the complexities of the legislation and the potential downside to bringing a new, untested, program into the city. The council tabled the ordinances and promised to bring them up at the next meeting.

The ordinances were once again labeled as an emergency in the September 26th meeting, but they were pulled from the agenda. There was no further discussion on the potential impact the new program would have on the entire city.

At the October 9th council meeting the ordinances were once again on the agenda, and they were once again labeled as an emergency. Councilman Tim Butler was absent from the meeting, so all six present members of the Loveland City Council had to vote yes for the ordinances to pass. Councilwoman Angie Settell voiced support for the individual project, but felt like the city was introducing an unknown new program into the city without understanding all the pros and cons. She voted no. The emergency legislation failed.

Just over one week later, Mayor Kathy Bailey, and her majority consisting of the five men on Loveland City Council, will take up these three pieces of emergency legislation at a non regularly scheduled meeting. Only the city council will have a say on creating this new program. No public input will be sought.

I fully expect the Mayor Bailey majority will pass these three emergency ordinances. Vice Mayor Rob Weisgerber, who says he does not like emergency ordinances, may say something, but I expect him to vote yes. I shared some of my concerns about the potential consequences of the new program with Councilman Butler. He may address those concerns, he may not, but I full expect him to vote yes. I sent an email to the council, per Councilman Butler’s request, asking a few basic questions. No one in the majority has seen fit to respond. Even Councilwoman Settell, who can speak tonight, has had her concerns brushed off by eye rolls and indifference from Mayor Bailey. The council majority does not care about opposing views. They have the votes tonight, and they will use any non-transparent means to get their way.

Why silence the city to push this legislation? Is it out of spite for people like me and Councilwoman Settell? I do not think so. My thought is that the council majority is using non-transparency because they want to hide from the city that the passage of these three pieces of legislation is for one project and one very small group of people.

Cronyism is the reason for the emergency meeting.

In less than one year, Mayor Bailey and her loyal majority have used every non-transparent administrative tool in the book to serve their cronies. Why should this be any different? The City of Loveland will have a new complex financing program brought into the community because of cronyism. The public shall have no voice when a crony needs a favor. That is how the council majority governs. The majority of the city will be silenced for the benefit of a few., the future be damned. Tonight’s meeting is just another reminder of the council majority’s indifference to the greater good of all.

I will be at the emergency meeting, and I will update to any shocking changes that may occur. I expect a quick meeting with three 6-1 votes. I expect no discussion. The majority wants to keep this hidden and quiet.

The council majority may have taken our voices away, but they did not take our vision. The record of non-transparency and cronyism by Mayor Bailey and her majority has been in full view all year long. I wonder how it will look next year for the city council elections? That is where the City of Loveland will no longer be silenced.


RD Kulik  is a resident of the City of Loveland and the editor at The Loveland Tattler. Do not be silenced. Let us know what you think.

Hit RD up on twitter @TattlerLoveland or email him 

Building the History of Loveland


Recently I attended a meeting of the Loveland Historic Preservation Design Review Committee (HPDRC). This is a new city council approved committee that is tasked with drawing the boundaries for what is to become the codified historic district for the City of Loveland. So, why did I attend this latest meeting, and how is this group’s actions important to the people who live, work, and play in Loveland?

Let me first answer the question to why I decided to attend the HPDRC meeting on September 26th. Being a resident of Loveland, I was very curious on how this particular group of people decided what should be considered historic, and therefore afforded certain governmental privileges due to the recent addition of Loveland into the Certified Local Governments (CLG) program. My curiosity was also peaked because at the meeting where the committee drew the historic boundaries, longtime council member, former Mayor, and current Vice-Mayor Robert Weisgerber was in attendance and addressed the the HPDRC. What the Vice Mayor said is not known because the meeting minutes did not include his comments (minutes to the July 25th HPDRC are included in the Agenda packet for the August 22nd meeting). What we do know is that Vice Mayor Weisgerber did speak, and his house is included within the historic boundaries. Anytime an elected official speaks at a meeting and their comments are not recorded for public viewing, my curiosity starts to peak. That is why I attended the September meeting of the HPDRC, I wanted to know how the committee decided on these particular boundaries for Loveland’s soon to be historic district.

Now let’s answer the second question, why should we care. One needs to understand what the benefit of having property in a historic boundary created under the CLG program. The one benefit I want to highlight today is the economic advantage of owning property inside a historic district. It only takes a quick Google search to see that having property in a historic district makes that property more valuable. Even Loveland’s HPDRC acknowledges that they want to create the protected historic boundaries “To stabilize and improve property values” (from the agenda packet of the September 26th HPDRC meeting). Again what we know is that Vice Mayor Wesigerber attended the meeting where the boundaries for the historic district were decided, the Vice Mayor spoke at the meeting, the Vice Mayor’s home is included within the boundaries, and being a part of a historic district is economically beneficial to property owners. Anytime an elected official benefits from a program that does not serve the entire community, every taxpaying voter should be asking questions.

So, how did the HPDRC answer my question on how they decided what should be the Loveland Historic District?

I will say the committee was generous with their time and attempted to answer my questions, specifically what Vice Mayor Weisgerber said at the meeting and why his home was in the historic district. The answer I was given was that the Vice Mayor did not advocate for the inclusion of his property, he just gave perspective on what areas of the proposed historic district could be marked for future development. The committee said they decided on the boundaries by using the Little Miami River and the O’Bannon Creek as natural boundaries. The Vice Mayor’s home just happened to be within those confines.

After considering the answers given by the HPDRC, my curiosity is growing.

The first new question I have is why would a committee that was created to preserve historic buildings, things built by people, use a natural formation to make their boundaries? The majority of older buildings are on both sides of the Little Miami River. The architecture is very similar on East and West Loveland Avenue. Even the Little Miami River Chamber Alliance, who uses property on the proposed non historic side of the river, refers to their area as the “West Loveland Historic District”. Even the Loveland Historic Society sits on the wrong side of the historic boundary. Using natural borders for a district made up of non-natural structures makes zero sense. Why was the other side of the river not included?

As for Vice Mayor Weisgerber’s home being included in the historic boundaries. By not having a record of what the Vice Mayor said at the meeting where the HPDRC drew the historic boundaries, friends and foes will make their own assumptions to why the Vice Mayor gets the economic privilege of having his personal property included in this government created protected area. No amount of scorn and disdain will silence the curious taxpayer.

The last, and in my opinion most important question that needs to be answered and will shine a light on the purpose of the HPDRC. Is the purpose of these boundaries to preserve or is the purpose of the boundaries to allow the city government to be the primary entity in determining how the private property in the historic district will be developed?

Preserve or develop, that is the question. What we know right now, with the information available to the public, is that the government of Loveland will decide on the city’s new historic look.


RD Kulik  is a resident of the City of Loveland and the editor at The Loveland Tattler. As of right now, the city council has not scheduled a vote on the historic boundaries. Stay tuned to this space for all of the updates you crave.

Hit RD up on twitter @TattlerLoveland or email him 

Loveland Has Been Drinking with Cronyism


Many municipal governments have the power to allow the drinking of intoxicating liquors outdoors. The government will pass what is called an "Open Container District" for a set amount of time to allow people to have their chosen alcoholic elixirs while walking the streets. The Historic District of Savannah Georgia has an open container district year round, and many fresh out of college people go to the city to take part in the marvelous act of drinking their booze under the stars. Drinking outside is pretty cool to a certain portion of the population, mainly the population that does not have kids. 

For cities and towns that do not have year round open container district, the power to grant this special exemption is usually used for large celebrations run by the city. The Fourth of July is a very common time when a local government may declare parts of the city to be an open container district. We all like to have a nice beer, or finish off a great wine, while we watch the fireworks explode in their colorful glory. Outside of the Fourth, most cities are hesitant to allow an open container district on a regular basis.

Loveland is not like most cities.

In the last few months, the Loveland City Council, led by Mayor Kathy Bailey, has granted three open container districts. The Fourth of July event in downtown Loveland was the first outside drinking event. That is an obvious one, and the council voted 7-0 to allow the district.

A few weeks later, the Little Miami River Chamber Alliance started planning a weekend long event in mid September. The open container district was going to be on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Councilwoman Angela Settell and Councilman Tim Butler questioned the hours, and days, of the proposed district, but after some amendments the Chamber Alliance was granted their wish of an open container district in a 6-1 vote. Councilwoman Settell was the lone dissenting vote.

Just a few weeks later another open container district was on the agenda. This time a private company was requesting the city lift outdoor drinking restrictions for an event in late October. There was minor debate on why the city was now in the outdoor drinking business, but the ordinance passed with a 5-2 vote. Councilwoman Settell and Councilman Butler were the dissenting votes. 

The most telling part of the debate surrounding the latest open container district was how the five yes votes said they trusted the event planner, and that is why they granted the district. The event planner is a known political supporter of Mayor Bailey and her (mostly) reliable votes of the five men on the Loveland City Council. Councilmen Butler, Ted Phelps, Kent Blair along with Vice Mayor Weisgerber and Mayor Bailey all made a point to say they believed the event planner would put on a great event. They wanted to reward their supporter.

Of course the council majority would believe a political supporter would do a good event. Even Councilman Butler said nice things about the event planner, but he at least realized it was not about the person, it was about the policy. Being a nice guy should not be the reason to grant the open container district. Only Councilwoman Settell and Councilman Butler seemed to grasp that concept, but the majority's political ally was granted his political favor. That is how cronyism works.

The upcoming September event also shows cronyism at work. The event is being planned by the Little Miami River Chamber Alliance, yet the city of Loveland has been advertising the event. It is not a city event. A different organization will be selling beer and wine, a similar situation was set up for the city run Fourth of July event, and this other group will make money, not the City of Loveland. When a municipal government grants favors to political allies, that is cronyism at work.

With the constant approval of open container districts in Loveland, how is the city council changing the brand of Loveland? Why are cronies the only people who have a voice in what others think of our community. Many people, myself included, moved to Loveland because we have a family. Open container districts every few weeks does not sound family friendly. Who wants to bring their kids downtown to Graeters or the Loveland Sweets on a weekend when outdoor drinking has been encouraged by the city government? Loveland was known as family friendly and filled with outdoor activity, now it is going down the path of being a town where you can drink in the streets. Will the elected city officials, and their political allies, hold your hair as you vomit into the city sewers. Is that the Loveland that the Mayor Bailey majority wants to present to visitors to our city? Sounds dreadful.

The lesson of this latest chapter in our city's long history is that if you are a political supporter of Mayor Bailey and her majority, then go ahead and ask for your open container district, or whatever you want the city to do. It looks like the big time swamp of Washington DC is here on the banks of the Little Miami River.

I am left with one question after this latest turn from our city government. What if a great event planner, who is not a political ally to the majority, came to the city with a great event. Would they get the same benefit of the doubt that the council majority cronies who planned the September and October events received? Would this non-connected person also get their open container district just a few weeks after the last? 

I think not.

Let's have a toast on the streets of Loveland to cronyism.


RD Kulik  is a resident of the City of Loveland and the editor at The Loveland Tattler. He has a lot of experience in event planning. Stay tuned to see if he gets his open container district approved. The event is being planned. 

Hit RD up on twitter @TattlerLoveland or email him 

Does Loveland Want Term Limits?


Late in the 2017 City Council Election season, Loveland saw a group of citizens and business owners start a push for a charter amendment to directly elect the mayor of the city, and another one to install term limits for all elected officials. Due to a misunderstanding with the local board of elections, neither amendment made it on the 2017 general election ballot. The issue(s) seemed dead in the water.

The Loveland Charter Review committee was formed in the early days of the Mayor Kathy Bailey administration. I went to one of the early meetings of the new committee to advocate for the inclusion of term limits into the charter. Since I brought up the idea of term limits, the committee has not yet made a change to the charter concerning terms of elected members of council, and the majority members of the committee have vocally dismissed the idea. It was said that term limits were unnecessary because the public did not want them for the Loveland City Council.

Is that true?   

Recently The Loveland Tattler commissioned a poll to see if the voters had tired of the idea of term limits for elected members of the city council. The fact is that the voters have not tired of the idea. The reality is that a large majority of Loveland supports term limits for all elected offices, including city council. Over 1400 people who were identified as registered voters in Loveland, Ohio participated in the poll. 62% of those polled said that they would be in favor of a charter amendment putting term limits on the city council. There were no specifics offered on what the term limit amendment would look like (i.e. number of terms, length of terms), yet nearly twice as many people support term limits than those who oppose. 

In the spirit of true community engagement, it is the opinion of The Loveland Tattler that the Charter Review Committee, the Loveland City Council, or both bodies, should call for a public hearing on adding term limits to the city charter.

This call to action is likely doomed for failure. I do not anticipate anyone on the Charter Review Committee, or the City Council, to even mention term limits. The politicians, and their political supporters, are predictably against the idea. The public at large is strongly in support of the idea. Given the poll results, if the local government does not want to hear the will of the people, then it may be time to revive the idea to put a charter amendment on a future ballot. 

The numbers do not lie. Loveland wants term limits.

Want to see the poll for yourself? Here it is: Loveland Ohio Term Limits Poll: Spring 2018


RD Kulik  is a resident of the City of Loveland and the editor at The Loveland Tattler.

Hit him up on twitter @TattlerLoveland or email him 

Shouting Into the Void of City Hall


The June 26th, 2018 meeting of the Loveland City Council did not go by the script. Once again Mayor Kathy Bailey, and her loyal group of five other councilmen, had to face people upset with a policy the council majority was trying to push through. To say that the council was unprepared and flustered is an understatement.

This new potential public relations disaster centered on the painting of the Loveland city owned water towers. The towers desperately need to be cleaned. The stark white paint has been a magnet for dirt and mildew ever since they were first painted. The half white half muck look of the towers does not help enhance the brand of Loveland. No one disagreed that the towers needed cleaning.

The issue in front of the City Council concerned an idea put forth by Mayor Kathy Bailey in an earlier meeting that the towers should replace the city logo with the logo, or branding, associated with the Loveland City Schools district. The Mayor said that the logos would be at the expense of the school district, or another entity, and would not be paid for by the city. Two people spoke in public forum about their disagreement with placing any logos on the water towers. These were people who had a vested interest in the city's actions since their homes, or livelihoods, would by affected by any changes to the towers. The council, like always, did not immediately address the speakers, or their concerns. A bit later, councilman Neal Oury did ask if it was possible to look at painting the towers the preferred color one speaker referenced. He was not given a clear answer. The ordinance to paint the towers, with city or school logos, passed 6-1. Councilwoman Angela Settell was once again the only dissenting vote.

Shortly after the concern of the public forum speakers was swept aside, a public hearing was conducted on changing the procedure for approving a special planning district. In simple terms, the council was voting on if they wanted to add another public hearing before approval on a new business development in an area not specifically zoned for the type of development. Two residents spoke at the public hearing, one for the change and one against.

I was the voice against the ordinance. 

An additional public hearing, in other words more bureaucracy, is not going to help speed up any economic development in any city. If anything, the additional layer of bureaucracy will send business development to other communities where the local government favors economic growth. I expressed my concern, explained my position, and offered a solution. I told the council to get out into the community and talk with the taxpayers who can not, or do not want to, come to the council chambers. Once again, no member of council acknowledge my words or engaged in any sort of discussion.

Before the hearing, councilman Tim Butler, along with councilwoman Settell, said they do not agree with the extra regulations being proposed for new development. Councilmen Kent Blair and Ted Phelps said they support the measure because they prefer to be on the on the side of more community engagement. The measure was not put to a vote. After the hearing Vice Mayor Weisgerber did feel the need to say that he hated bureaucracy. Yet he also voiced support for the measure. Right now it is hard to say where the Vice Mayor stands on this issue dividing the city council. Maybe the Vice Mayor will vote the ordinance down when it is up for a vote and show the community how much he hates bureaucracy. 

The June 26th Loveland City Council meeting showed that the majority of council feels the need to only engage with the concerns of the community at large strictly in the council chambers. These elected officials choose only to discuss the city issues on their home turf. They get unlimited time to talk about whatever they want on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month. The concerned public gets five minutes in public forum. That does not seem like a good environment to have quality community engagement.

Why does the new council majority demand that the public bring their concerns only to the halls of government? Why does the new council majority ignore, and refuse to engage in meaningful debate, with people who do not blindly believe everything Mayor Bailey and her five councilman voting block believe in? For Loveland to thrive, we need all viable thoughts to be acknowledged. No one is infallible. Good government is achieved by listening to all voices, not just holding back room secret meetings with one's political supporters.

As a resident, a parent with a child enrolled in Loveland City Schools, and a taxpayer, the secrecy and aloofness of the Loveland City Council majority is disheartening. The council committees have been stacked with political supporters, and people who are not even residents of the city. The council itself gives dissenting voices five minutes on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, then refuses to have any meaningful discussion. There is very little opportunity for a different opinion to be heard with the elected officials of Loveland. It is frustrating trying to have your concerns heard by an uninterested city council, but there is hope that things can be different in the future. Every person gets an equal voice, and equal time, at the ballot box.


RD Kulik  is a resident of the City of Loveland and the editor at The Loveland Tattler. He wants to hear from all voices, especially those who disagree with his ideas. Find out about one of our many community meetings by contacting him on twitter @TattlerLoveland or email