Meet In CommonNews

Local

Grove City voters approve Community Consent Amendment

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: Southwest Messenger

Issue 28 requires voter approval for particular sizes and scopes of commercial and industrial developments; opponents say it will result in a desert of development moving forward By A. Kevin Corvo/Messenger Contributor Future commercial or industrial development in Grove City of at least 50 acres and those that exceed established caps on the consumption of water and electricity now require a citywide vote. Grove City voters on Tuesday approved Issue 28, an amendment to the city’s charter that requires a citywide vote on any industrial development project that is 50 acres or greater, draws or is designed to draw greater than 20 megawatts of electricity at peak capacity, or consumes or is designed to consume greater than 500,000 gallons of water daily. According to unofficial results from the Franklin County Board of Elections, Issue 28, also known as the Community Consent Amendment, passed with 11,317 votes (55%) in favor of the ballot issue and 9,411 votes (45%) against the measure.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at Southwest Messenger

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Preserving historic places can justify limiting redevelopment.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

Your anonymous gift could inspire millions more if you reveal your name. Do you?

A donor wants to make a transformative gift without recognition. The charity believes announcing the gift and the donor's identity would encourage matching contributions and help far more people.

Can the opportunity to create more good outweigh a preference for privacy?

Explore this quandary