Lifestyle’s Lawsuit Against Worthington is Resolved in Our Favor
On Friday, December 27, 2024, Judge Sarah D. Morrison, Chief Judge United States District Court, notified us that Lifestyle Communities’ lawsuit against the City of Worthington had been summarily resolved in our favor. Both Lifestyle and the City of Worthington had, many months ago, independently submitted to the judge a Motion for Summary Judgment in their favor. Lifestyle’s was denied. The City of Worthington’s was granted. We prevailed. The judge concluded her statement: “IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Lifestyle filed their suit in March, 2022. From the beginning, I viewed Lifestyle’s legal action not as a case based on issues of fairness or justice, but as part of a business strategy in which a corporation tries to bend communities to their will, achieving through litigious and financial coercion what could not be obtained through normal public processes.
In this light, I am proud of our City for standing firm upon the basic principle that we, as a community, and not outside financial interests, have the right to control our own future, within and through the law. That we have the right and the ability to legally govern land use in our city—through our City Charter, our codified ordinances (including, importantly, our zoning code), numerous planning documents, and established procedures enacted through boards, commissions, staff, and Council.
This judgment is a very important outcome—vindicating and hopeful—but it is not the end of our UMCH journey. Lifestyle now owns the property (they bought it from UMCH for $5.2 million in January, 2021). And they can make a legal appeal, which could string us out in the courts for another year or two.
But surely there is a better way.
As a business owner myself, I have found that most business people are inherently pragmatic. So I am hopeful that Lifestyle will pause and consider whether further legal action is really in their self-interest. How would further legal actions against Worthington engender goodwill with the public? And how would protracted legal action against Worthington help Lifestyle’s corporate reputation in the many markets in which they wish to conduct business?
Lifestyle’s reputation could be enhanced—in spite of all that has preceded—if they were to recognize that the interests and outlook of the Worthington public simply diverge from theirs, fundamentally, and that it is both sensible and productive to part ways. This is a decision that only Lifestyle can make, but I know that adaptation to changing circumstances happens all the time in business. And I know there are those in Worthington who would gladly support and assist an effort toward a mutually beneficial outcome.
In closing, I wish to thank and congratulate our legal team, led by our own Legal Director, Tom Lindsey, for their skill, wits, and fortitude in guiding all of us through this challenging experience. And, as the foundation to it all, I am very grateful to the many members of our community who, for many years now, have expressed themselves clearly and passionately about UMCH and its vital place in our community. The organizers and volunteers of Worthington Alliance for Responsible Development (WARD) and Project Community Park Worthington (PCPW) warrant special gratitude for asserting the rights of the citizenry and for offering positive, community-centered visions. Finally, I want to call attention to the central role that our zoning code has played in defending ourselves against Lifestyle, and in guiding how the UMCH land will ultimately fit into and support our community’s long-term well-being. Simply stated: our zoning code, established in 1971, has been the singular most effective means whereby we have had the legal ability to say no to the 500-700 units that Lifestyle wanted to construct in the heart of our historic community.
That’s all for now. More to come.
