Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > August > 06 > Entry
Guest column: Woman’s final wishes ignored in Warren County
This commentary was written by Terry Banker. She lives in Turtlecreek Twp., near the former Warren County Orphans Asylum.
Re the Aug. 1 story, “Old Mary Haven site has county in a bind”: The Warren County commissioners do not own the Mary Haven Home and its 53 acres. They hold the property in trust for the purposes set forth in the 1872 will of Mary Ann Klingling and the enabling legislation allowing for the establishment of an orphanage.
Mary Ann Klingling was not an eccentric. She was a German immigrant and a product of the post-Civil War era, who discriminated and was discriminated against. In the end, she generously gave her fortune for the benefit of children orphaned by the war and the harsh circumstances that followed.
The Warren County Orphans Asylum was to be supported by interest paid by the county at 5 percent per year on the balance of the Klingling funds, which in 1900 was $47,000. A Children’s Home attached to the Orphans Asylum by Warren County was to be supported by tax dollars. Together these two institutions provided a safe haven for hundreds of children, over many decades, under the care of dedicated couples acting as superintendents and matrons.
The Warren County commissioners began violating the purposes of the Klingling will in the 1960s. In 1966, the Orphans Asylum schoolhouse on the property was torn down and the county engineer facilities installed, with no compensation to the trust.
The April 18, 1977, Dayton Daily News reported, “In 1977, Mary Haven said goodbye to its last group of youngsters placed there by the Children’s Services Board. It welcomed a new group — all boys — placed there through the Warren County Juvenile Court system.” Again, no compensation was made to the trust. The county disbanded the orphanage’s board of directors. The county made no accounting, legally required, of the $47,000 Klingling fund.
Abandoned in 1996, the Warren County Orphans Asylum and Children’s Home is a very rare and historically significant building. It has been deemed structurally sound and the county has it insured for more than $1 million. At any time during the last four decades, the commissioners could have petitioned the court to authorize the property for other uses, but they have not.
A sale to the private sector, with the proceeds benefiting needy children, would likely have been allowed.
Instead there has been systematic neglect of the building, lowering its value to the trust. Offers by volunteers to stabilize and mothball the building to Department of Interior standards have been dismissed. The charitable law division of the Ohio attorney general’s office has requested the Warren County prosecutor start the legal proceedings to determine how the trust will be honored and what to do with the building.
I hope that the commissioners will step up to the plate, produce an accounting of their liabilities and move forward to avoid costly litigation. Mary Ann Klingling’s bequest to the children of Warren County should be honored by everyone.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Guest Columns
Tweet
Comments
By no honor among thieves
August 7, 2010 9:25 AM | Link to this
The county commissioners are doing what politicians do best, manipulate the situation to their advantage. Key words are “with no compensation to the trust”
By Ed Borden
August 9, 2010 3:12 AM | Link to this
$47,000 is not a lot of money and that was 33 years ago. The promises of politicians long since out of office do not necessarily have to be kept if it is not deemed by the powers to be in the best interest of the government or of the people. No one wants to say that they don’t support an orphanage or children, but sometimes, we need to move on. Hopefully, when the property is sold, the profit goes to a charity befitting of the trust.
By Annette
September 14, 2010 2:32 AM | Link to this
I’m not sure what Ed is even talking about, as her will was written in 1872 and her death was around 1900. Thirty- three years? Anyway, the money she donated at that time would have a value of near $500,000 today. She was a wealthy women in that day and age, felt strongly about this cause and was very specific about her donation. It should be respected.