Setting the Record Straight
June 26, 2026 — Protect Grove City
When we started this campaign, we made a promise to have real conversations. That means we don’t get to skip the hard questions. So here are three we’ve been hearing… and our honest answers.
OBJECTION: “This shows you don’t trust our city council.”
We actually hear this one a lot. And we want to be clear… this isn’t about the people on council right now. Most of them are trying to do right by this community. We believe that.
But here’s the thing… good governance isn’t about trusting the right people. It’s about building systems that work no matter who’s in the room.
And it’s worth being clear about what this amendment does not do. It doesn’t take away a single one of council’s responsibilities. Council still enforces our zoning. Council can still hold a company’s feet to the fire to meet every requirement on the books. If a developer won’t play ball, or won’t deliver on what they promised, council can still vote no. All of that power stays exactly where it is. What the amendment adds is one more layer… the people get a say too, before a project this big moves forward.
The Ohio Constitution wasn’t written because the Founders distrusted the first legislature. It was written because they knew institutions need to outlast the individuals inside them. The folks on City Council today won’t be there forever. The next group might face different pressures, different relationships with developers, different incentives. This amendment isn’t about this council. It’s about every council that comes after them, too.
And honestly? We’d flip this around. This amendment says we trust Grove City residents enough to have a say in decisions that will shape this community for decades. That’s not distrust. That’s democracy.
OBJECTION: “This will scare businesses away.”
We take this seriously. Jobs matter. Economic development matters. We’re not dismissing that.
But let’s look at what this amendment actually does.
It only kicks in when a proposed development hits very specific thresholds… 50 or more acres, 20 or more megawatts of power, or 500,000 or more gallons of water per day. Any one of those triggers a public vote.
Your average retailer, restaurant, medical office, or light industrial tenant? Not even close to those numbers. This amendment doesn’t touch them.
And here’s something worth thinking about… a lack of any clear process is actually riskier for developers, not safer. Without a defined path, a big project can walk straight into years of grassroots opposition, legal challenges, and community friction. A clear, predictable process that everyone knows about in advance? That’s actually better for good-faith developers too. It sets expectations. It reduces surprises.
Good projects that genuinely benefit Grove City should be able to make that case to voters. We think they can… and they should.
OBJECTION: “The amendment was thrown together.”
We’ve heard this one stated pretty bluntly… that the amendment looks like something thrown together with a poorly implemented online form. The specific example offered is that it references a “City Auditor,” a position Grove City doesn’t have. Fair point to raise. Let’s talk about it.
Grove City doesn’t have a position called “City Auditor.” We have a Finance Director who does that job. So why does the amendment say “City Auditor?”
Because charter amendments are sometimes written to describe functions, not job titles. That’s on purpose. Titles change. Org charts get restructured. If we wrote “Finance Director” and that role got renamed or reorganized down the road, the language breaks. “City Auditor” describes the fiscal oversight job… whoever’s doing it. In Grove City, that’s the Finance Director. A court reading that language would look at what it’s trying to accomplish, not whether the business card matches exactly.
In our opinion, that’s actually more careful drafting, not less.
But here’s what we really want to say about the “thrown together” critique… this amendment was built by ordinary Grove City residents, not lawyers or lobbyists, working with independent legal counsel to respond to a real and urgent situation. Was it written in a city hall conference room with a full legal staff? No. Was every provision thought through carefully, with a documented reason behind it? Yes.
And we’ll say this plainly: we’re not attached to our specific words. We’re attached to the outcome.
If the council and administration wanted to take a serious look at what this amendment is trying to do, draft their own version, and put it on the November ballot through an ordinance… we’d be open to that. Genuinely.
As long as the same boxes get checked. The thresholds. The public referendum requirement. The enforceability. The permanence. The protections for township residents. The fair treatment of existing facilities. Etc. If a council-drafted version gets there, that’s a win for everyone.
That would take real good faith on their part. But we’re not here to own this fight. We’re here to Protect Grove City. If there’s a path to the same destination that brings more people along, we want to walk it.
Heard something we haven’t addressed yet?
This is the first in an ongoing series. If you’ve come across a concern about the CCA… from a neighbor, at a meeting, or online… send it to us at info@protectgrovecity.org. If it’s a real question, we’ll answer it publicly. We’re not afraid of the hard ones.
— The Protect Grove City Team
