A developer from out of town wants to come to the rescue of a vacant property on Main Street and all that has to happen is that we agree to sell him a city parking lot and evidently vacate an alley.

All we have to do is approve this and sell the property within a 30-day time frame.

If I remember correctly, the last time our City Council acted in a rush to judgment, it resulted in a referendum being passed that resulted in a rescinding of the legislation so hurriedly passed.

I would only ask that due diligence be exercised in this proposed development to avoid not only a possible embarrassment for our city fathers, but also to afford a proper review by our Planning Commission and all city entities involved.

True transparency should be exercised in an undertaking of this magnitude to ensure that the best interests of our city are the outcome. My experience has been that if something seems too good to be true, it just might be that.

The sale of the parking lot in a manner designed to circumvent the legal process required for such a sale seems, if not a bit shady, a whole lot shady.

If the sale goes through and the development is approved, the alley will probably be closed. This is the same alley that “Rally In The Alley” closed for vendor and performer setup, causing a complaint. A section of parking area on Main Street was dedicated so as to not block the alley no matter how short the duration.

I guess things do change with time.

A third party review with full disclosure might ally any fears or suspicions associated with this project.

Don Kinn



Findlay Safety Director Paul Schmelzer commented in a May 8 article (Courier, Page A3) about contacting the supplier of the yellow crosswalk lights imbedded in the street at each of the three mid-block crosswalks.

Why bother? These lights haven’t worked effectively since they were installed.

Why not install the bright yellow lights on the poles like at the library/courthouse crosswalk. Ice, salt, water and traffic don’t affect those lights and they can be seen for a block or so.

Even if the in-road lights worked, heavy traffic blocks them and someone could get hurt.

Terry McGuire



According to the Supreme Court (Roe v. Wade), women have the right to abort their unborn child in the U.S.

On Jan. 24, 2019, the state of New York expanded on this with the passage of the Reproductive Health Act, which upon signing by Gov. Cuomo, was received with great applause and fanfare from the signing attendees. This allowed abortions beyond the third trimester.

The Supreme Court’s decision gave women complete control over decisions concerning their body, but no tax dollars would be given for an attempt to abort a child.

This being said, why do my tax dollars go to efforts to save the life of a person who has been given the right to ingest or inject poison in their bodies, if they so desire?

If I cannot protect the life of the unborn, why should I stand in the way of poisoning by personal choice?

Craig Nichols