The Backstory

How did all this Dingee Farm stuff come about?

The Farm was on the market over a year, then the City bought it using federal funds.

Doris Dingee, the last owner of the Farm, passed away in September 2021. The farm sat on the market for over a year, well into 2023. We (Dave & Brian) made two offers on the property in February 2023. Unbeknownst to us, the City of Columbus was pursuing the property at the same time. We can’t say for sure, but we believe our interest accelerated the City Council’s plans to purchase the property. In March, the City announced it had reached an agreement with the Dingee Estate to purchase the Farm. Members of the public filled the Council chamber, nearly all in opposition to this plan. The City closed on the deal in early April, ignoring public outcry.

Later, the City disclosed that it had used federal ARPA funds to purchase this property. ARPA is the American Rescue Plan Act, passed in 2021 to stimulate the economy after the disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic. This federal money is available to municipalities for a variety of purposes, one of which is housing development. That said, municipalities must follow clear guidelines if they decide to use the funds to buy land for development. Specifically, a municipality can only use ARPA money to buy land for development if the resulting homes meet the income-based definition of “affordable housing.”

What did the City do with the property once they bought it?

The City put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) and not one developer submitted a plan. But we did.

After purchasing the Farm, the City asked developers to come to them with a plan for a housing development. This is known as the RFP process. The deadline was in June 2023 and not one single developer submitted a proposal. Some Alders suggested that developers were scared off by the public outcry against demolishing the Farm. The more likely reason is that its physical characteristics make it a terrible candidate for development (more on this later).

There was one plan submitted via the RFP process, though… ours. We wanted to make the property our home, first and foremost. We wanted to restore the farmhouse and the rest of the property, in addition to starting a veteran-owned small business for hosting events and agritourism. If you’d like to read more about our plan, check out the Our Plan section of the site. Given the stated support by the Mayor and Alders Reid, Finkler, and Roelke to sell the property to us at the July 25th council meeting, we hired an attorney and entered into negotiations with the City in summer 2023.

How did the City handle the one proposal that came out of the first RFP process?

The City strung us along for four months and then the Mayor sunk the deal for reasons that we still can’t figure out.

The City Council held a series of closed-session meetings where they discussed, but took no action on, our proposal. Then, at the July 25th Council meeting, the Mayor re-stated his intention to get the property back on the tax roll and off the City’s books. At that point, given the stated support of the Mayor and Alders Reid, Finkler, and Roelke, we began negotiations through our attorney. We had a productive back and forth until November. Both Attorneys seemed to feel that a deal was within reach.

All of that changed at the November 7th Council meeting. A roll-call vote was finally held in open council and our proposal was denied by a vote of 3-4. The original three Alders who opposed our plan (Gray, Steiner, and Motiff) voted no, which was expected. The Mayor voting against us was a complete surprise, considering he had gone door-to-door during his campaign, telling people he supported our plan. After voting no, the Mayor stated that there was a stalemate in negotiations, which absolutely was not the case. Even our attorney was stunned by this. The Mayor also stated that he had “done his own research” on the topic and decided that his answer was no. He waited two weeks to offer an explanation and when he did, he said nothing new. To this day, we do not have any concrete reason for why the Mayor went back on his campaign promise.

Upon submission of an open records request, we learned that two developers had been talking with the City and individual Council members while the City was engaging in seemingly good-faith negotiations with us. You can learn more about that in the Dingee Files section of our site.

What happened in the second RFP process? Did you submit your proposal again?

The City put out another request for proposals (RFP) in January despite public outcry.

On January 16th, a new request for proposals (RFP) appeared on the City’s website. It presented a highly accelerated timeline for RFP submission and review. After the previous process collapsed last year, several on the Council decried that earlier process as “rushed” and poorly thought out. Their answer to those concerns was to move faster because they knew the election was approaching and that their plan was deeply unpopular.

Proposals were due on February 16th. There were three this time: ours and two from developers who intend to bulldoze the Farm.

Save Dingee is about preserving the Farm — whether using our plan or another one.

We started this as a movement to preserve a historic farmstead, not as a “sour grapes” revenge campaign. We genuinely believe that gaining a handful of houses by demolishing a community icon is not a good trade-off. The City needs to think bigger and find better ways to address its tax base and affordable housing problems.

We still believe in the validity of our plan, so we submitted it again with some minor edits. We hoped there would be multiple plans that involve saving the Farm; however, ours was the only one submitted in time.

On their way out the door, the last City Council voted to advance a proposal by a Madison-based developer, Lamps Landing, LLC.

On March 19th, the Mayor once again broke a 3-3 tie and sided with Alders Gray, Steiner, and Motiff. They voted to deny our proposal and move the Lamps Landing proposal to vote in the Council. Alders Reid, Finkler, and Roelke opposed moving the developer’s proposal forward, for which we are once again thankful. Keep in mind, this simply means that the City intends to negotiate a contract with Lamps Landing. Nothing is yet set in stone; no contract is signed.

The Lamps Landing proposal was not properly vetted. There was never a public presentation beyond the paltry details included in the RFP response. There are also significant concerns about this developer’s track record which have not been explored in a public setting. Visit our new section, The Case Against Development, for a more in-depth look. Despite all of these question marks, the previous Council stuck their incoming members with a poor decision. There is hope, though. With a new Council and with no contract currently signed, the Council can and should reverse this decision and work with the community to find a way to preserve the Farm.

It is important to note that in the April 2nd election, Alder Steiner (who steadfastly supported demolition of the Farm) lost his seat by 15%. Alder Gray, who spearheaded this entire scheme, has left politics. That means two Alders with proven, pro-demolition track records have been voted out of the Council. Our hopes now rest with our two new Council members.