MANSFIELD, Ohio — Mansfield City Council unanimously rejected legislation Tuesday night that would have granted a conservation easement on portions of John Todd Park to the North Central Ohio Land Conservancy Inc. and the Richland County Park District Board.
The 7-0 vote came after council heard from numerous individuals who argued the pros and cons of the conservation easement. The easement would have prohibited timbering or major development in the ravine portion of the park (roughly 14 acres).
Eric Miller, president of the North Central Ohio Land Conservancy, said John Todd Park is special and has a lot to offer, including a wildflower population that “surpasses six city parks put together in terms of the variety of wildflowers that are there.
“Because of that, there is now what we would call a ‘celebrity butterfly’ — a butterfly that’s now increasingly rare and a species of concern in the state of Ohio. Now all of that can be granted permanent protection if you sign the conservation easement.”
He said the easement wouldn’t require action from the city, “but it would be your pledge, your permanent commitment that the John Todd ravine be treated as it has the last 73 years.”
He continued, “If you do that (sign the easement), that will prompt those of us who study natural areas like that, those of us who want to use the John Todd ravine as a way to educate children in the city about what ancient Ohio looked like, to do the additional work necessary to protect what’s special there from being eliminated in the years ahead by invasive plants that have been brought over from Asia that are now starting to take over the ravine.”
He also noted, “When this 21 acres was given to the city by Mr. Todd himself back in 1942, there wasn’t a legal mechanism for him to protect the land that was as good or as effective as a conservation easement…so we’re coming along now and offering you a way to effectuate the intent that is found in the document, whereby the city received that park as a gift, and that intent was that the city would protect the natural beauty, and now you have a way to do that.”
Lynn Brinley, the great-granddaughter of John Todd, said she has a problem with the deed of conservation easement being an “encumbered deed,” adding that she sought legal counsel, which identified it as an encumbered deed.
She also pointed out that as part of the original agreement between the city and John Todd, if the land is no longer used as a park or for civic or recreational purposes, it reverts to the heirs of John Todd.
“If it gets given back to the heirs and we have all the liability and all the tax responsibility but none of the control, that’s not fair,” she said.
She added that she doesn’t see how the easement would benefit the city.
At-Large Councilman Cliff Mears said, “To me, a lot of red flags come up with this legislation. Number one, there seems to be questionable legality of even doing this. The second red flag to me is it’s permanent, irrevocable, forever and who’s to know how the city’s needs are going to change?
“We don’t know 40-50 years from now what the needs of the city are going to be, and to sign anything into legislation that’s forever concerns me.”
Another major issue, he said, is that a number of John Todd’s heirs are against it.
“I think that holds a lot of weight for me,” he said.
Third Ward Councilman Jon Van Harlingen made a motion to postpone voting on the legislation, but the motion failed.
First Ward Councilman Mike Hill said he agrees with members of the John Todd family.
“The Todd family was generous enough 75 years ago to give that to the community, and for us to table this and drag the family back here every two weeks to share more testimonies, I don’t think that’s fair,” he said.
Fifth Ward Councilman Jason Lawrence said the easement “ties our hands for the future.”
“We may want to do something with this land–positive, beneficial to the city–and we may not even be on council when that opportunity comes up and we’ve then tied the hands for future councils,” he said.
