Some Yellow Springs residents have recently coalesced under the mission to “Save Frogtown,” a campaign to preserve the Village-owned Glass Farm and restore its purported natural state as a wetland. The political action group formed in response to Village Council’s stated intentions to build affordable housing on Glass Farm. Pictured above on the land are, from left, “Save Frogtown” proponents Robert Libecap, Chad Runyon, Nicole Stout, David Stout, Laura Bergman, Eric Baldwin, Laura Curliss, Heather Hughes, Tad Hughes, Jayne Brahler and Pam Nelson. (Photo by Reilly Dixon)
New calls to ‘Save Frogtown’
- Published: September 7, 2026
Geese, ducks, herons, egrets, beavers, muskrats, foxes, coyotes, minks, weasels, woodthrushes, king fishers, water snakes, snapping turtles, sharpshinned hawks, marsh wrens, northern bob whites, red-headed woodpeckers, American woodcocks — “and on and on.”
These were just a few of the resident species that longtime villager and nature educator Bettina Stolsenberg named at the Aug. 17 Village Council meeting — animals and birds she and several other local villagers beseeched Council to consider as they pursue their stated intentions to build affordable housing on Glass Farm.
“As a nature educator, I’m deeply concerned about the preservation of habitat for the wildlife on Glass Farm,” Stolsenberg said, echoing the message of seven others who spoke at the Council meeting.
Owned by the Village since 1974 and located in the northwest reaches of Yellow Springs, the 42-acre property has been the locus of conservation and housing debates and discussions for several decades. Eleven acres of the land are under a conservation easement; six are the site of a 2.5-megawatt solar field; the center swath of acres is where Council aims to build affordable homes.
Stolsenberg is among a group of around a dozen villagers — mostly all neighbors to Glass Farm — who have, in response to Council’s renewed efforts, coalesced under a straightforward call to action and group name: “Save Frogtown.”
The name is an homage to historical references to the property as such, which the group found in county records and YS News archives that date back to the 1800s. Those local records show that “Frogtown” was, at various times in its postcolonial history, a home to not just amphibians, but also a notable population of immigrants who settled in Yellow Springs.
“Save Frogtown” folks, many of whom are also transplants to town, meet regularly at the end of Ridgecrest Drive, where the road dead-ends into Glass Farm. Since forming earlier this summer, organizers launched an online petition to “keep public land in community hands,” which has garnered nearly 700 digital signatures — 68% of which were made by people in the central and southwest Ohio areas. The group has also organized letter-writing campaigns, packed Village meeting rooms and, last month, printed promotional stickers.
At a recent “Save Frogtown” meeting, organizers underscored their first and foremost goal: to convince Village Council members to conduct a formal wetland delineation study on the land before pressing ahead with any housing plans.
“I think we can agree that we all want the information that a delineation study can provide,” Eric Baldwin said at the meeting. “Whichever direction the Village decides to go, this study will be educational. And valuable.”
The group’s rationale is that a thorough study conducted by independent scientists and environmental professionals would ostensibly yield results that attest to Glass Farm’s ecological significance, and as such, may spur Village Council members to think twice about installing any development on the land.
“Wetlands are rare in the state, country and globally,” Laura Curliss said. “Are we really going to be the town that builds on one of the rarest habitats out there? There are so many other spots in town — we have so much potential for infill. This is the last place you want to build on.”
According to the Department of the Interior, Ohio has lost 90% of its wetlands over the last two centuries, and per the Environmental Protection Agency, more than one-third of threatened and endangered species depend on the habitat.
“These are some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world,” Laura Bergman said. “They’re just as important as a coral reef, a rainforest. They store carbon, and by getting rid of them, we contribute to global warming.”
Chad Runyon added: “And during a flood event, this land stores water. Look at what happened in Indiana,” he said, referring to recent flooding in some communities. “With climate change, we should consider having a little more capacity to capture water. That’s what a wetland like this can do.”
Robert Libecap said he hopes the Village goes well beyond saying “no” to housing on Glass Farm — he imagines a completely restored wetland that could one day feature a nature center and accessible pathways to draw visitors to enjoy the habitat.
“It could be a welcoming community for animals, birds and humans,” he said.
Whether Glass Farm is in fact a wetland is beside the point in the view of some members of “Save Frogtown,” who claim the hydric soils of the land are prone to oversaturation with or without the official designation of wetland.
“So, it’s not just affordable housing, but all kinds of housing — million dollar homes — that we don’t want to see here,” Heather Hughes said. “We are not anti-affordable housing. I wouldn’t want anyone’s home to be built on property like this. These are hydric soils — basements will flood.”
Hughes and others pointed to several reports that attest to Glass Farm’s tendency to hold water: A 2016 geotechnical engineering report that states that due to the land’s “shallow groundwater conditions encountered in the borings, structures with basements are not considered suitable at this site.” A separate USDA soil survey suggests that 65% of the whole of Glass Farm functions as a “natural wetland basin” with a water table three to six inches deep.
David Stout asked: “How affordable is it for a homeowner when, in five to 10 years, they have to fix a foundation that’s sinking into the ground?”
Despite the group’s claims, various Village-led surveys and plans have recommended building some number of homes on Glass Farm to meet the local housing needs. The latest Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Bowen Housing Needs Assessment both floated the possibility.
But nothing’s slated to go in the ground at Glass Farm any time soon — Council’s still in the nascent stages of planning. A request for project proposals from potential developers was issued last month.
Village Council members have previously underscored an interest in working with village residents on a plan that works for them and fits the conditions of the land.
“Community engagement is critical,” Council Vice President Angie Hsu said earlier this summer. “We know the community cares, is concerned and is invested. Such a big part of this is engaging them in a process that is productive, informative and forward thinking.”
She and her colleagues are set to explain some of that engagement process at Council’s Sept. 21 meeting, during which an “updated Glass Farm public engagement timeline” report is scheduled.
For Council member Carmen Brown’s part, she previously said “the buck stops with [her]” regarding the kind of housing Council intends to build on Glass Farm — that, in her view, it must incorporate green building techniques and involve energy efficiency.
The villagewide debate over all or at least most of the 42 acres of Glass Farm being a wetland or not is nothing new.
Most recently, in 2020, then Village Council member Curliss pleaded with her colleagues at the dais to designate all of Glass Farm as a conservation area; such a motion failed to garner support. Then Council member Marianne MacQueen rebutted the assertion that the land was a wetland, saying that flora and fauna indicative of a wetland were not present on the land.
“Glass Farm is not a wetlands,” MacQueen said in 2020. “Laura Curliss has stated this a number of times but stating it does not make it more accurate.”
Local discourse over Glass Farm reached a fever pitch in 2001 when, at the behest of an activist group called “Save Another Farm,” an affordable housing plan for the land went before Yellow Springs residents in a special election. That plan failed to pass. Voters turned down the issue, with 942 rejecting affordable housing on Glass Farm, and 629 voting in favor.
A delineation study would put the debate to bed once and for all, “Save Frogtown” members suggested.
“I want the Village to finally do the legwork,” Stout said.
“And not a developer,” Curliss clarified.
“Frogtown” members also rebuked the notion that they were “NIMBY”s, or individuals opposed to any development, especially “not in my backyard.” Though many of them live directly adjacent to Glass Farm — several in the Spring Meadows subdivision — they insisted that their goals of land preservation aren’t necessarily at odds with growing the local housing stock.
“I take offense to that claim,” Pam Nelson said of any NIMBY accusations. “If I care about the environment, it doesn’t mean I don’t want you in my backyard. It means that I’m choosing to value land over development.”
Libecap took a slightly different tack.
“I wish everyone saw Glass Farm as their backyard,” he said. “This land is for the community, for the county, for southwest Ohio. That we see it so closely as neighbors shouldn’t diminish our caring for it or our desires to protect it.”
“I think our message is we can have both,” Bergman said of the affordable housing/land preservation problem. “We just want the Village to be smart about where it puts things. We should be building closer to downtown — especially low-income housing. It makes more sense, especially in an ecological sense.”
The Yellow Springs News encourages respectful discussion of this article.
You must login to post a comment.
Don't have a login? Register for a free YSNews.com account.
No comments yet for this article.