Being in Florida, I have not personally heard the radio program where our mayor promotes the sale of city property to ensure the sale of the Argyle site. I wonder if this is a new dimension of the administration to facilitate real estate sales in our city. If so, will this assistance be available to all citizens? Or will it be restricted to owners who have a past relationship with the city, like the Argyle site owners?

If members of city hall proceed with this facilitation, I feel that it is important that full financial disclosure be made by all parties and that any subsequent action be fully vetted before finalization.

The city has attempted to interfere with private property rights in the past. This attempt of facilitation of a real estate sale is yet another demonstration that they have either forgotten or chosen to ignore the reason for their positions of trust. These people were elected to govern and serve the citizens of Findlay, not act as real estate agents for certain private citizens or agencies.

I recognize that our city will be improved by the development of the vacant site, but the city’s participation in that development should be as a reviewer of plans and assuring that city codes are being addressed and not as a partner in pursuing that development.

The mayor’s enthusiasm should be applauded but should be tempered with the obligations of the office that she holds.

Let’s get back to being a city serving all citizens and not a selected few.

Don Kinn



I’m a letter writer with no consideration given to writing a great American novel (or even a modest one). Most of my writings are not submitted, primarily when I realize I’m just venting for my own benefit and not the community’s. Even the four letters I’ve recently written have not been published for reasons that I understand. There are other letters that are more timely and have more merit than mine, which focus on independent bipartisan history but miss the larger independent movement going on right now in the country.

This independent movement is reflected in the new Courier, just as it was previously with The Courier it replaced. Independent views are reflected, not just toward the leaders in each party, but toward principles of the parties themselves. These principles are supportive of the country, not just a particular party. Mona Charen, a columnist in Friday’s paper (Feb. 7), compared Mitt Romney to Thomas More, calling him a modern man for all seasons. Some of her previous views have struck me as leaning more Republican than Democratic. However, her views today strike me as being independently applicable to both parties.

Newspapers today need to report news with an independent balance to survive “” and hopefully thrive. They are in competition with social media, an unedited resource also needed for diverse reporting. We the readers (and not just the papers) are increasingly becoming the filters and editors while the paper provides a forum for sharing our views. If you want to hear the rest of the stories, they can be heard at the people friendly Fort Findlay coffee shop. You can hear these stories that provide some helpful news, amusing blarney which does not deceive, with a shortage of baloney which does.

Tom Murphy



With the upcoming primary approaching, I’m wondering what in the world Sheriff Heldman would be running for again!

The last time he ran (in 2016), the reason was to be the longest-serving sheriff in Hancock County. OK, he’s reached that point. Now what?

I’ve heard that the reason he’s running again is so that he gets his name on the cornerstone of the new jail building.

For Pete’s sake! I’m sure one of those other boys would put his name on the building out of respect if that’s what this is about. I was also told by my neighbor man that he intends to step down after his second year of this term (if he wins) so that he can appoint one of his own members of the “Good Ole’ Boys Club.”

That’s just ridiculous. The reasons why Heldman is running again cannot be good for our county. Although I have respect for the man for serving all these years, I believe it’s time we gave one of those other boys a chance to see what they can do.

I pray for all of these candidates that they have the best of luck and that it doesn’t become like this nonsense I’m watching on television set right now with the president, for crying out loud!

Martha Brown



Craig Nichols (Feb. 7) can’t seem to stop defending his indefensible quackery on Jamal Khashoggi’s murder being his own darn fault. Apparently, being in love and wanting to get a marriage license from wherever he could get one was just not a good enough reason. Nichols says he “would not leave my safe haven and go to … Turkey.” Well some people will do anything for love and there’s been many a song with that title. So maybe love hasn’t been No. 1 on Nichols’ list in order to feel any empathy toward Jamal.

Then the rant against Don Iliff (Feb. 5) begins about Obama and Ukraine. It’s true that the dual Dutch/U.S. citizen Quinn Schansman was a victim of the Russian missile downing of Malaysian Flight 17, but Nichols is wrong when he says Obama did nothing. The president called for an immediate cease-fire between pro-Russian separatists and Ukraine and a “credible international investigation” into the incident. And Obama did oppose Russia’s annexation of Crimea and initiated Russia’s expulsion from the G-8 and invoked more sanctions.

Isn’t it mind-boggling that Trump tried ad nauseam to convince the other G-7 leaders that Russia should be reinstated? Trump ignored the widespread opposition to Russia’s actions within Europe and among U.S. allies while blaming Obama for doing nothing. Who knows? Maybe Obama could have done more, but he definitely did not do “nothing.”

And Nichols’ insinuation that Trump should be felicitated for Putin not “conquering any new territory” since he’s been in office is laughable at best. Giving Trump credit for arming and training Ukrainians to fend for themselves is also disingenuous. Congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was blocked for 3-4 months by Trump so that he could attempt the famous “quid pro quo” for dirt on Biden. Trump deserves little credit here since Putin knows full well that he would get the wrath of Europe and beyond in addition to possibly added sanctions or worse if he attempted a similar stunt. Facts, facts and more facts!

Salena Maazaoui