A busload of East Cleveland residents and allies is heading to Columbus next week to attend an evidentiary hearing on the state’s petition to place their city in receivership.
Organizers say the trip is to ensure that community voices are present, visible, and represented during a critical moment in the city’s future.
The hearing will be held Wednesday, December 10, 2025, at 10a at the Ohio Court of Claims, Courtroom 3A, 65 South Front St, Columbus [43215].
The community bus will depart from Dave’s Supermarket – Severance Town Center Parking Lot, Cleveland Heights. The bus will depart promptly at 7a; boarding will begin at 6:45a and is expected to arrive at court by 9:30a.
There is no charge to ride the bus, but a reservation is required. Riders must register by 11p Friday, December 5. To register, contact Jim Pope at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 216-401-6568.
The purpose of this hearing is for the Court to determine whether the statutory conditions for the appointment of a receiver under Ohio Revised Code 118.29 have been satisfied and, if so, to consider the selection and appointment of an appropriate receiver. The Court may receive witness testimony and exhibits as appropriate and, in its discretion, conduct an evidentiary hearing.
The state, through Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, is arguing that East Cleveland’s precarious finances necessitate placing the city under receivership. A friend of the court brief filed by longtime East Cleveland resident and civic leader Paul Hill argues that the state’s attempted takeover is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and an administrative overreach.
In an interesting full circle moment, Hill’s brief cites the celebrated U.S. Supreme Court case of Moore v. East Cleveland [1977]. In that case, the city itself tried to regulate home occupancy through a city housing ordinance that defined "family" so narrowly that Moore's grandson was prohibited from living with her. She won the case with the help of Cleveland’s Legal Aid Society when the Court found the city guilty of overreach. The city is now arguing that the state is guilty of overreaching. The state’s use of the receivership statute has reportedly never been invoked against a municipality, with some residents believing their majority-black city has been targeted by the state.
Moore, whose case was emblematic of the then-white power structure’s attempt to stem the influx of black residents into East Cleveland in the late 1960s, now has a city street named in her honor.
• • •• • •
