OF THE 1990


To determine a vision of the future of Yellow Springs. 53 neighborhood forums were held Involving approximately 500 citizens. Most participants declared they live in the Yellow Springs area because of its diversity, small size. green spaces and. independent schools. They also emphasized the importance of preserving these characteristics. The near unanimity is a strong mandate to Village and Township governments to act upon the concerns and recommendations outlined in this report.


· FORUM PROCESS: Should be used to continue discussion of areas where disagreement occurred and many questions surfaced, i.e. trade-offs. Greatest concerns were housing. greenspace. non-polluting businesses, and independent schools.

· COORDINATION OF GOVERNMENTS : The community endorses the newly developed coordinated efforts of the political bodies of the Village and Township.

· LAND USE : The community also strongly endorses continuing efforts to develop a land use policy.

· PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE: Needs to be broadened to a more collaborative effort among the Village, Township. and School officials, as weil as representatives from county agencies, as appropriate.

· INFORMATION: Community residents want to receive more information on issues concerning the Urban-Rural Interface' . Information and education about development control options and current policies should be provided to the general public on an ongoing basis. Both active and passive means need to be used.

Neighborhood forums: Newspaper; Newsletter:
Speakers Cable Access: Library:

* Participants specifically asked for more information on: exempted village/independent school status; village versus city status; location of open/green spaces; the apparent trend toward less safety for children; and the presence and/or degree of racism in the Village

Inherent in these recommendations are a number of differences, even contradictions, for which resolutions must be sought. Basically. Yellow Springs area residents want incompatible things. It is clear that residents will need to make decisions one way or the other. We can not have all the benefits without paying some costs. Listed below are a number of opposing desires which will need further 'investigation and discussion, resulting eventually in compromise.


Village services should be maintained and in some cases expanded.

Independent school status is valued;
curricular and co-curricular offerings should be maintained and strengthened.

Diversity in housing options is desired. Diversity of life-styles prized.

Small population size is valued and should be maintained.

Maintenance and expansion of green and open space is desired.

Support for home-based businesses valued.

Downtown business district is valued.


Higher taxes are unpopular and options for "acceptable' new industries are limited.

Low end housing options : "not in my backyard"

Options for certain economic groups will be threatened and possibly eliminated.

Low-growth may hurt schools and encourage erosion of population diversity.

May require higher taxes and more stringent zoning regulations: may limit commercial, industrial. and housing development.

Zoning regulations may not be acceptable.

High level of tourist trade requires expanded services, including additional parking areas, felt to be undesirable.

The full report will be presented to a combined meeting of Village Council. Township Trustees, and Village School Board on Monday. November 5, 1990. Copies of this report (including history, process, results, and support materials) are available for further study it the Village Hall and the public library, or contact Kent Bristol or Jo Tomeldorff at the Village offices.