Historic Hall House demolition discussed by Council Monday

[Joan Roberts]

Two quick comments.
One, I read the entire "Planning & Development" post, and the only thing I don't understand is, why all the moving parts? If the city wants to build a parking lot, why not just buy the property, put in the meters, and put the revenue against the debt? The issue of what to do with the structure is a side one and should be between the owner and the Historical Society.
Remember, there was no official designation on this property and it only got on the radar screen when the deal was announced. If anything, this is evidence for a comprehensive (private, non-profit) survey regarding exactly what buildings Lakewood wants to preserve,and what it's willing to pay to preserve them. Post facto protests are unfair to all parties.

Second comment is to Mr. Schrempf. With courtesy and all due respect, I disagree with your "back door" comment. This proposal was placed on its first reading March 20. A committee meeting is tonight. A second reading, presumably, would be April 6, and final action couldn't be earlier than April 20.
That's four opportunities for public comment and input over the disposition of private property If the owner had sold the building to Yum! Inc. (love that name) for constrruction of a new Taco Bell, there would have been no oiscussion.
The city certainly should conduct its business transparently, but it does need to be able to conduct business. This procedure seems pretty open and above-board to me. What would your recommendation have been?

[Paul Schrimpf]

Joan --

Yes, the city did have private meetings outside the public domain. But the emergency ordinance was placed in the docket and even many of the stakeholders were unaware that it was taking that step.

My problem with that aspect is, once you open lines of communication, you cut them off at your own risk. Every one of the stakeholders should have been informed of the docket entry immediately. Anything less is slipping it through the back door. And the parties got what they deserved -- a lot of hassle. And it's not over yet.

Yes, it could have been sold and turned around. But it wasn't. It was brought to the city's attention, and an MOU was drawn up and brought to council with only a handful of "stakeholders" in the know. We're talking about the spot where one of the most historic homes left in Lakewood stands, and the only stakeholders in the know were those in the area. The Hall House is a unique entity of historical significance, and I believe that the entire city is a stakeholder in the deal. We all should be aware of its potential demise. Even if it is sold to Taco Bell, there would be time to react because of permitting, etc.

Again, I've said it before, this city does not have the necessary respect for its history. It should be fully in the discussion whenever new development takes place, and placed on the continuum. On a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being most significant historically, the Hall House is a clear 10. But it has not been treated as such. All I want is to have historic significance get its day in the discussion -- and carry some weight.

[Joan Roberts]

Mr. Schrimpf.

Good points. Please accept my apology for the misspelling of your name. I appreciate the concern about "stakeholders." My question (and I don't want to be too esoteric about this) is "who are the stakeholders and what are their stakes?"

I agree that the entire city is a "stakeholder", but is our interest solely to preserve the past? If you have more of an affinity for history and old buildings, and I am more focused on here-and-now economic vitality that benefits Lakewoodites today, which of our "stakes" is more compelling? Is there a balance. And, if neither of us have plunked down our $$$$s, do either of us have any stake at all?

My interest isn't in arguing. It's practical. Lakewood's a tough place to do business, and historical "surprises" don't make things any easier.
My practical question. What ARE the 10s? Let's find them now, so we don't blindside any other property owners.

[Charyn Varkonyi]

Paul:

How is it that you deem this individual absentee? It was stated that the condition of the other houses owned by this property owner are in code and this one was shelved due to the current negotiations to demolish it and replace it with a p-lot. Certainly, it only makes sense that one would not improve a lot that was being demolished?

I also have to say that I dont believe that anyone tried to back door anything. Considering that very few people gave a rodent's rectum about this property before there was an idea to move it - I really doubt that council, or any person, could've foreseen this opposition.

Where were all of the people demanding that it be fixed up and preserved BEFORE there were plans to build a parking lot? If people are soooo concerned, why are they not going to council meetings and lobbying for whatever other historical markers they think should be preserved? Have we really become such an apathetic community that we will only respond once plans are drawn and progress is begun?

Better yet, how many people are so devoted to preserving Lakewood that they would support a hike in the local tax rate? Oh yea... not many if I recall. It really is time for people to wake up and realize that there aint no such thing as a free lunch. You want parking? Structures will have to go and people will have to live next to that parking. You want historical preservation? Someone, somehow has to pay for that. Not only for the moving & restoration, but for the upkeep as well. It is not a one time cost - it will have ongoing liabilities that will need to be paid!

FFT

Peace,
~Charyn

[Joan Roberts]

Ms. V.

You came pretty close to nailiing it. This is my second time around here, and the terrain has changed.
We don't want more taxes and we don't want to give anyone raises and we don't want fewer cops and we don't want to knock down old buildings and we don't want Dollar Trees and we don't want eminent domain and we don't want parking lots and we don't want Section 8 and we don't want chain stores and we REALLY don't want more taxes and we don't want bars and we don't want malls and we don't wantt things to stay the same and we don't want anything to change and we don't want.....
What the heck DO we want? And do we really think anything is going to be without a price?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Update

Strong challenges were made and strong concepts put forward. Tom Jordan came prepared, and a lively discussion was put out for all. Strongest contingent by far was Lakewood Historical. All made strong points about saving it, even if it meant moving it. Rick Sicha stole the show for Historical Society by mentioning simply, this is the start of another bigger project so why not wait.

On the owner, Mr. Coutris, who has been compared by some as a slumlord, or as Kevin Butler put it has come as close as possible, pointed out that all of his other properties are compliant, and that these properties only became a problem when the City started talking to him about the parking lot in 2004. At that point he quit fixing them up.

Michael Gill disputed that fact and proceeded to talk about many of the problems and the headaches of being Mr. Coutris neighbor.

As I understand the deal now which has changed since the first time I heard it. Mr. Coutris is paid $150,000 to tear down house and put up parking lot. Then the city pays for meters, insurance and maintenance. All money is split. the city estimated it would take in $5,700 or so a year. Some people thought it was a bad deal and the city would lose money. Tom Jordan pointed out that many things the city does is not for profit, but to generate help for business.

Cited was the parking lot next top Player's Pizza. Ryan Demro pointed out that that lot sits empty all day, and looses the city $1,700 a month. Mary Louise Madigan was very sharp, and kept on about the deal, the cost and how could the city do a deal in this financial climate. Citing the new budget.

Some asked about if a Bond would be needed and Tom Jordan said no, the money is in a special fund. However one city worker pointed out that the city borrows money right now, and like Issue 11. That still meant a bond would be needed to make up that money.

Meeting was sharp, and council was too.

Next Monday is the second reading.

My only points at this time are: The lot is obviously being built for McCarthy's, maybe Pannini's, possibly the Drink, and the YMCA. McCarthy's and Pannini's were just sold, so the new owners had to know there was little parking. The Drink is rarely occupied by many, and Tim at Malloy's would rather have a parking lot behind his bar and has tried to buy both houses and the building on the other street using his own money.

FWIW

[Jim O'Bryan]

Joan

Let's look at it another way.

Is this the best use of $150,000 right now. Especially when the budget is so tight. I encourage you to go the the area and walk around. Mr. Coutris, mentioned if this fell through he would fix the house up and rent them. Another thing to come out was that Tea Cups and Thyme only closed when they got wind of the deal.

So questions. What are 1 commercial and 3 residential units worth in taxes and two the community. We know the parking lot with a best case scenario would only make $5,700 a year, and that means it could also loose money.

But please walk around and see if the lot makes any sense there. Or would it be better one block west? Or even two blocks west. If we went 2.5 we end up in the middle of the entertainment district, and can service 6 bars, and the lot is already there! Owned by the church, but there, and ready for meters.

Really a tough one, but I believe the words of Pat Ballasch sums it up best. With a budget you need to prioritize. With a budget as tight as ours you really need to. Is this parking lot the most important thing on that list?

The whole thing is very interesting. General feel by the neighbors and other residents. No thanks.


.

[dl meckes]

Are you talking about the lot by Rosatti's?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Are you talking about the lot by Rosatti's?

Yes

[Kate McCarthy]

Unless the parking lot is metered in the evenings and on weekends, I don't see how the city would generate much revenue from any parking lots in western Lakewood. The idea of using a parking lot that is empty most evenings and doesn't encroach into a residential neighborhood makes much more sense if possible.

This shopping strip is the closest thing Lakewood has to an "antique row" and I always felt the Hall House, being antique, fit in nicely. Tea Cups in Time was a great asset that drew people into our community and is yet another business lost to Rocky River. I think it's a terrible shame if it's true that it was pushed out after getting wind of this plan. Does anyone know if the Antique Corner closed up shop for a similar reason?

[Kenneth Warren]

Cities are spaces with interests and opportunities in contest. Sometimes the contest begins in private conversation that explores interests and opportunities. There may be details proposed in conversations that do not surface until the public process begins. That’s the action side of economic development and the real estate business in the big city.

Last night’s meeting clarified for me the actions, stakes, points and priorities of agents in this contest over the use and development of space in the city around Detroit and Edwards, the YMCA/Flats Lite commercial district and neighborhood. To my reading this project is a textbook example of how bets and stakes are played in the public/private partnership dance of urban real estate and economic development.

I listened to the property owner speak about conversations with agents for the city. As a result, I don’t believe it is quite fair to characterize this owner’s conduct as blowing off the code enforcement process.

According to the property owner, the Building Commissioner broached ideas to improve his properties and the area at the YMCA ground-breaking last summer. That overture evidently started a conversation about improvements to his properties, which clearly advanced ramifications for the remedy of code violations.

It is in the light of such conversations between the owner and agents of the city hoping to set in motion a cycle of improvements for his properties that the extensions issued by the Law Department and/or the Court might be considered as negotiating and leverage points.

The owner described his intention to do something good for Lakewood. Given this intention, it seems there was some coordination of efforts among the various agents and powers of the city in the hope of realizing some good for Lakewood.

Depending on bias, interests, stakes, etc., citizens and agents for the city will debate and contest details and values of what’s so good for Lakewood about this deal.

Obviously agents for the city are interested exploring a partnership with this owner. They are interested in setting the stage one way or another in a development continuum that might begin with parking and end some day with a mixed use development. The Director of Planning suggested as much.

Because the property owner has assembled a considerable range of contiguous properties, the Planning and Development Director holds the highest hope that at some point a mixed use development will occur there.

So there appear to be from the actions and statements of agents for the city both a short term stake – an interest in more parking – and a long term stake - an interest in mixed use development.

Again the owner has assembled the parcels. It seems only logical to assume that he is therefore, the player, the partner in the vision that agents for the city have for developing and improving the property over the long haul.

It’s a matter of their diligence and citizen vigilance to ensure an effective outcome from the soup of actions, interests, perspectives, speculations and values now in play.

As I read the action, doing something about Lakewood's parking problem is the surface pitch. Reading between the lines, I would suggest again there is a larger picture of development and improvement through public/private partnership informing the decision making context here.

It might be argued, not by free market types of course, that the city has an interest in establishing a partnership with the owner who has assembled these properties. In this broader picture, the city might need to ante up cash to establish its stake, its capacity for input with the owner, lest some undesirable development come to the parcels some day in the future.

Some people will find such an expenditure objectionable, others not.

From listening to the various speakers last night, it seems that the partnership is designed to keep the ownership of the parcels intact, to set up a relationship with a view toward mixed use development in the future.

The owner shifts some expense for out-of-pocket improvement and property tax to the city. In effect, he plays a waiting game, banking the land.

Short term parking will be created.

Again the larger vision is not, in my opinion, parking.

The parking play is the time honored way for capital to depreciate urban property valuations for purposes of accumulation and land-banking until the time is ripe to sell high and achieve a more robust level of economic development.

This post not intended to condemn the agents and interests in the process, but simply to register for your consideration a perspective on a rather common strategy.

In my estimation it is the high hope for a place at the mixed use development table that the city is ultimately banking on in this deal.

So there are tangibles and intangibles in the deal. The intangible long term benefit is the hope for the long shot mixed use development. The tangible short benefit is the parking amenity.

In the short term, elected officials can demonstrate a track record of action on the parking front.

The hard-nosed approach to a business plan and financial projections that make dollars and sense may not be precisely relevant to these intentions.

And who can put a price on hope?

Of course the short term parking amenity creates an objectionable situation for some residents in the neighborhood.

Ordo Ab Chao. Perhaps there is an order of upscale value to emerge at some point in the future from the chaos of the downscale bar scene.

Finally, the LO electronic bulletin board is a democratic and inclusive means for people in Lakewood to frame, critique, process, speculate and contest matters of interest and vision. At the LO observation deck real names are used, biases generally are acknowledged and subjected to critical pressure, and commitments are made to an open source and experiment sense of civic fair play. If an action, agent or issue has been mischaracterized and one knows or even feels otherwise, then one is compelled by decency to make the effort to correct the matter.

It is worth noting that last night Councilman Butler made a statement to the effect the property owner feels the bulletin boards have characterized him as a slum landlord and that is not the case.

While it is difficult without comparative data to discern where on the continuum of owners this one’s long history with the city might be properly placed for evaluation, I will concede the possibility to misconstrue and overstate his action in the suggestion that he is among those who “thumbed their nose at city housing codes and have allowed their properties to deteriorate.â€Â￾

Let’s all attempt to describe the actions, interests, and perspectives in the city that would know itself better than any other with attention to details, passion for our city and thoughtful debate.

That's my take.

Kenneth Warren

[lisa shaffer-gill]

I will concede the possibility to misconstrue and overstate his action in the suggestion that he is among those who “thumbed their nose at city housing codes and have allowed their properties to deteriorate.â€Â￾


Ken, you have pulled a quote from one of my posts specifically. So I feel the need to respond. I never wrote that Mr. Coutris was a “slum landlord.â€Â￾ I believe that Tom Jordan was the first person who began throwing that term around. I wrote exactly what you quoted from my post. I do not believe it is misconstruing or overstating to say that he has longstanding violations. The following are the exterior violations.

1376-78 Edwards
9/18/02; porch being rebuilt without permit
to be fair 9/22/02; permit secured
1/03/04; maintain siding, paint exterior, maintain lattice.
3/23/04; repair lattice, front, provide, maintain porch , north, south leaning, paint/stain steps.
11/29/04; letter indicating 3 violations from 3/22/04 inspection still outstanding. Extension until 6/13/05.
6/01/95; complaint, overgrown bushes, gutter, vegetation growing out, storm windows missing, paint flaked and peeled
6/13/05; remove debris, repair porch decking, remove and cease parking of commercial vehicles on residential property
6/24/05; summons to court on 7/01/05

1386 Edwards
6/1/95; lack of general maintenance, painting, porch etc.
1/15/02; Letter citing four outstanding violations from 1/24/01 inspection. Compliance date extended to 6/7/02
1/28/04; Non compliance summons denied by law due to length of time no action by law was taken. Re-inspect and send new correction notice. House flaked and peeling, shakes rotting and missing, lattices, front porch not painted, front steps bare wood.
3/22/04; front porch…shifted causing above pillar cant …needs paint. North, south porches leaning, porch decking buckled, paint/stain front steps.
10/28/04; notice of safety and maintenance inspection on 11/15/04. No notes for results.
7/05/05; letter from building department, extension granted until 8/19/05
6/24/05: summons to court on 7/01/05

Hall House
10/28/98; broken floor boards, exit signs, light fixture
12/9/98; unsealed electrical boxes, rear door exit sign, maintain floors, maintain exterior doors, maintain windows, paint or provide protective surface for all exterior surfaces weathered with dirt or grime or which are peeling or flaking.
8/2/99; letter regarding uncompleted abatement of violations from 12/9/98, extension until 8/25/99.
Etc..etc..etc.. until 10/22/02 Summons to court.
10/27/03 all corrections appear to be completed.
I have no more recent documents for Hall House. Presumably it is up to code?


These are publicly documented facts. Clearly, there was a lot going badly with those houses before that hot day last July. In my eyes, yes, that is thumbing his nose at the housing code to have that many long standing violations and not tend to them until summoned to court. I suppose I’m not so concerned with his intentions. It’s irresponsible neglect as a property owner. And, maybe, the bloody dead birds in my driveway have made me feel mean about the whole matter.

Some appear to feel the code violations aren’t really the issue here. They are more concerned with the Hall House and the finances. I think it’s all part of the package. It’s not an issue of parking or no parking. I don’t think the city should use tax dollars for a parking deal that cuts into a residentially zoned area, regardless of it’s right and ability to do so, sets precedent and doesn’t make provisions for Hall House. In the end, the city won’t own or have long term control over the lot. I agree, it’s a placeholder on the hope that a larger development plan comes along. I say let that development plan be in place before zoning is changed and historic structures are destroyed. Allow Mr. Coutris to exercise his right to pay for and create his own private lot just as many other businesses in the city have done. He can then take responsibility for what happens in that lot. It will still take a number of cars of the street, right? And that addresses a frequently stated concern.

And of course my family and I have a more personal concern in that we don’t want to live next door to the bar parking lot. My children’s bedroom windows face that side of the house---I can only imagine the further blossoming of their language skills! So yep, our bad, we bought the wrong house. I wouldn’t support this proposal if it were some other family’s side yard. This issue will come up again, and I add my voice to the many that have already spoken about the need for a development plan, vision statement, list of values about how development will be guided… whatever you call it. Someone said it very well Monday night, “We need to be proactive, not reactionary.â€Â￾[/quote]

[Jim O'Bryan]

Finally, the LO electronic bulletin board is a democratic and inclusive means for people in Lakewood to frame, critique, process, speculate and contest matters of interest and vision. At the LO observation deck real names are used, biases generally are acknowledged and subjected to critical pressure, and commitments are made to an open source and experiment sense of civic fair play. If an action, agent or issue has been mischaracterized and one knows or even feels otherwise, then one is compelled by decency to make the effort to correct the matter. Kenneth Warren

Ken

It should be noted that in this very democratic process called the Observation Deck that in the past other land owners entered the discussion and got more than fair treatment. Who can forget how Mr. O. L ombardo entered the Deck and earned respect if nothing else. However the man who claims to be very supportive of the city seems to be not willing to discuss the matter with residents.

FWIW


.

[Paul Schrimpf]

I'll make this real simple for those confused by my post to understand. What I said was that historic preservation needs to be a part of the discussion. There are probably only about a dozen or so residential structures left of any importance. Put them on a 1 to 10 continuum:

Nicholson House: 10
Oldest Stone House: 10
The double I lived in on Morrison in 1988: 1
The Hall House: my opinion, 10

We say we value our history. But we need to move forward. Let's decide what we absolutely must save, and when it's threatened let's get it out there and talk about solutions, both private and public. I never suggested that we raise taxes for preservation, or that I expect the city to be the source of the solution. But had I known back in 2004 that discussions were underway that might threaten the property, you bet I would have asked more questions. Let's at least discuss it, and do so in a fashion that leaves time for the people who care to react.

[Kenneth Warren]

Lisa:

Thank you so much for responding. I appreciate your detailed post, which provides a capture of the code violations. “The bloody dead birdsâ€Â￾ in your driveway constitute an ominous augury, a disturbing kind of albatross clearly entitling you to carry on with your story, much like some new-fangled ancient mariner inspiring the LO homies to imagine your grief.

Neither you nor I used the term “slum landlord.â€Â￾ That the term “slum landlordâ€Â￾ surfaced and pricked psyches during these deliberations speaks deeply to anxieties held not only within the business models of many Lakewood property owners amassing low and mid rent parcels but also within the broad psycho-geography of city where residents and, one would expect elected officials, are increasingly concerned about housing stock maintenance, something the Grow Lakewood Report and Lakewood Alive survey clearly captured.

So your post again raises the question of priorities and criteria for partnership:

What is the topmost priority?

Do other visions and practicalities trump the housing maintenance concerns?

Does this project present the correct opportunity for elected officials to demonstrate a strong political will consonant with this housing maintenance priority?

What criteria related to past performance with respect to code violations will inform the standard for a prospective partner with the city?

Have these matters been determined yet? If so, how?

Is there any benchmark?

If not, will Citi-Stat yield any clues?

Obviously, if housing stock maintenance is indeed the priority, then this rich, multi-layered development OP, filled with so many high hopes and moving parts, as Ms. Roberts has aptly discerned, will call for the political will of elected officials and residents to raise the bar on enforcement.

Is the city truly interested and ready a full strength dose of enforcement?

So we come back again to the question of vision, priorities and values – the planning question.

Does anybody really know the lay of the land around Detroit and Edwards?

There seem to be various clouds of moving parts, high hopes and floating ideas, the dynamics that typically occur in business behind closed doors. So I am curious about whether or not the YMCA has stated on the record any interest in locating its Y Child Care in the area under consideration. It is my understanding, that at one time an idea had been floated to have Mr. Coutris build a pre-school facility for the Y to lease from him.

Could this possibly be what he means by “doing something good for Lakewood?â€Â￾

It would seem activation of such a moving part would necessitate the knockdown the building next to Hall House. Does anybody know whether or not this moving part is on the table or off the table?

Does such development mark a higher and better use in a way that is consonant with, say, the Planning Director’s high hopes for a mixed use development in this area?

Kenneth Warren