Celebrate our neighborhood parks in Northeast Ohio
The questions that have not been addressed or answered to our satisfaction include the following:
1. How significant are the health risks posed by the contaminants to those (occasionally) using the park and to those living in the immediate and the extended vicinity of the park and the landfill?
2. How will the toxic landfill problem impact the property values of homes built on, adjoining or in the general vicinity of the landfill area that includes and extends beyond W.C. Reed Playfield?
3. What legal obligations do the City of Cleveland and the EPA have to address health and property concerns and issues confronting the affected residents, home- and property owners? Incidentally, how can the city claim to be an "innocent landowner" unaware of any contamination when landfill operations were reportedly conducted AFTER the city purchased the site in 1942?
4. How thoroughly will the proposed remediation plans eliminate those risks? Will the abatement be permanent, or can we expect to see a recurrence of the same problems in another decade or two or three? If the latter, why are the city and the EPA resorting to half-measures?
5. Is the city planning to parcel and sell off some of the park acreage, e.g. to Riverside Cemetery? If so, what other plans does the city have for the liquidation and privatization of this community asset?
6. What precedents are there for the proposed remediation plans? Where else, in what other parks and contaminated land has the EPA executed this or any similar plan using a permeable membrane or porous soil barrier to abate toxins, and how successful have these been?
7. How many trees will be destroyed, and how many can be saved according to this proposal?
8. Can we examine a sample of the proposed soil barrier?