Helen Keller once accurately said, “Philanthropy is a tragic apology for wrong conditions.” However, while acknowledging the truthfulness of her wise statement, until society is willing to change those wrong conditions that keep some folks mired in poverty, thankfully we have individuals and institutions in our society willing to use a portion of their wealth to improve the lives of those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
Now that the fight over the land the Cleveland Foundation will use to build their new headquarters (on E. 66th between Euclid and Chester) is finished — the Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear the case that was brought by dissidents who were attempting to block the sale — the hard work of rebuilding long-neglected east-side Cleveland neighborhoods can commence apace.
The vacant lot that was sold to the foundation by the board of the Dunham Tavern Museum for their headquarters was being touted as “historic greenspace” by the dissidents, which conjures up images of a wonderfully manicured, lush plot of land that was being used by the surrounding community for all sorts of wonderful activities. But nothing could have been further from the truth. There’s nothing “historic” about a vacant lot.
The land in question has had a four-foot high fence around it (I guess to keep out interlopers) for years and the notion that it was used by the nearby community is laughable. My home is three houses, two vacant lots, and one church away from the property in question, and if anyone in my community was utilizing that land in any constructive (or even in a non-constructive) manner, rest assured that I — as nosy as I am about goings on in my own neighborhood — would have been aware of it.
The lawsuit that was filed concerned itself with one very narrow specific issue of law: Was the vote by the Dunham board to sell the land legal? Obviously the courts at every level agreed with the defendants that the sale was aboveboard. But then the conversation morphed.
Those who opposed the sale foolishly turned the debate toward the direction of how “good” or “bad” foundations are in terms of how they use their financial resources. But how about we take a step back and look at how such wealth is accumulated in the first place?
Every fortune made in America has been accumulated at the expense of working stiffs: lowest wages possible, longest working hours allowed by law, and often dangerous working conditions. And new fortunes are currently being built on the same business model. Just look at Amazon and WalMart — where some workers qualify for public assistance. For the most part, the American wealth-accumulating ethos has been, and continues to be, to screw working-class men and women at every turn.
If naysayers opposed to philanthropy and foundations want to attack something, why don’t they go directly to the root causes of poverty instead of bashing those who are attempting to do good by solving the problems?
So the real issue came down to: Would the parcel of land in question better improve society by just sitting there as “historic greenspace,” or would the building of the Cleveland Foundation’s headquarters on the site result in the improvement of the living conditions of the residents who live nearby and far beyond?
Of course some lawyers will say that wasn’t what the courts were asked to rule on, and they are right. But for anyone — lawyer or not — to fail to realize that jurists have a moral obligation to take into account broader implications of their decisions are legal wonks, often devoid of the milk of human kindness or common sense.
Every court that touched this case ruled for the “highest and best” use of the land.
Will the construction of the Cleveland Foundation headquarters in proximity to my home and winery improve conditions and bring much-needed resources to my community? Of course we all stand to gain. What baffles, puzzles and confounds me is why some folks from outside of our community happen to be so troubled by this opportunity that will assist us in improving our lot in life.
One Response to “MANSFIELD: Highest and Best Use”
justine m smith
I agree. There are some people who thought it was open to the community and got on the bandwagon. They also thought there was some empty space nearby. They didn’t know how closed off it was. Their intentions weren’t bad. They were just misinformed. They might have also thought the museum was going to be torn down but of course, that was not the case either.