But community members that attended the city council meeting were nearly unanimous in their opposition.
Blue Ash City Council gave the ordinance a first reading at its May 8 meeting. Two hours of public comment followed, with significant ire directed at Archbishop Moeller High School’s possible use of the facilities.
After the public hearing, Blue Ash City Council member Brian Gath, who earlier seemed to express support for the proposal, offered to make a motion that would have allowed the seven-member city council to vote on the ordinance immediately, without waiting a second reading in June.
“I don’t believe it’s going to pass,” he said, arguing it wasn’t fair to the developer or the community to let the process drag out further.
Several city council members said they needed time to process what they heard from the developer and in public comment.
Others protested they did not know how they were going to vote yet.
“Maybe if we had seven slam-dunk ‘no’s', but I don’t think we do,” said Blue Ash City Council member Marc Sirkin. “This is too big a project to rush through.”
Gath never made the motion. The ordinance vote is scheduled for June 12.
What is Moeller's involvement in the stadium project?
The standout feature of the development proposal, and the source of most of the public pushback, is the multipurpose 5,000-seat outdoor sports stadium with a turf field. An apartment building and a hotel would enclose the field to the north and west, respectively.
The stadium itself would cost $20 million to $25 million to build, Rob Smyjunas, CEO of Vandercar, told city council members. It’s intended to be a community asset, used for all manner of youth, high school and local professional sporting events.
The stadium would be managed by a private third party. It would be overseen by a new community authority, governed by a board with at least one city representative. The community authority could raise funds through new fees on food and beverages sales, room nights or event tickets in order to pay for city services, upkeep, landscaping and security. It would ensure the stadium does not cross-program with Summit Park.
The stadium would be owned by anonymous donors, Smyjunas said.
The anonymity of those donors was a flashpoint at the public hearing, with one speaker describing the nonprofit structure as a “smoke screen” for what they believed to be a stadium designed and specifically intended for Moeller.
Another speaker described the Moeller football program as a “trojan horse” to bring in other big events.
The development team referenced Moeller’s potential tenancy two years ago, when it first proposed the project. But the Archdiocese of Cincinnati has barred Moeller from getting involved, according to Marshall Hyzdu,
former president of the school and a current member of the development team.
Hyzdu told city council members the developers “missed the mark” in their initial presentation of the stadium concept as Moeller-centric. He said the developers went back to the drawing board and came up with the community-oriented, multipurpose proposal currently under review.
Community members at the meeting framed the involvement of Moeller or Moeller donors as a given – and a negative.
“This is the Moeller football stadium, and that’s what’s not right about this plan,” said Jim Friend, the HOA president of the Daventry neighborhood in Summit Park. He characterized the project’s supporters at the meeting as “Moeller people.”
One of the supporters later remarked, “I feel the hate for Moeller in this room.” Another referenced an “animus” toward the school.
Those against the stadium voiced safety concerns about what one described as “rowdy teenagers and drunk outsiders.” Others decried how it might benefit “private interests” and “mystery owners” who “don’t have the city’s interests at heart.”
