Kauffman Park - Plans to Redevelop?

[Bryan Schwegler]

Can you say, without qualification, that you'd never agree to sell
Kauffman Park?

For me personally, no I would never say with certainty I would never sell the park. I think all options should be on the table, even eminent domain if needed for the future development and growth of Lakewood. I wouldn't trust a mayor who would unequivocally say they would never use such tools. It's impossible to say what could or could not be done.

Now with that said, I would hope that in any development case, whether it's the use of eminent domain or selling off of public parks, that the due diligence has been done and it is only done in appropriate situations with a payback to the city far greater than what we're willing to give up.

Just to make it clear, I'm not a fan of eminent domain, especially now as a homeowner, but I'm not foolish enough to remove it completely from the table as a necessary development tool depending on the situation.

[sharon kinsella]

Bryan -

Eminent domain isn't going to happen in Lakewood - not with occupied houses.

The West End proved that. That was also the demise of Mayor Cain.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Bryan -

Eminent domain isn't going to happen in Lakewood - not with occupied houses.

The West End proved that. That was also the demise of Mayor Cain.

Sharon, never say never. I'm not saying it should be a preferred option, but it's completely reckless and foolish to completely remove it from the table if necessary.

The downfall of Mayor Cain was not necessarily the eminent domain issue (look at the vote, Lakewood was just about 50/50 split on it). It was her overall bungling of the issue in ever aspect. People lost faith in her and didn't trust "her" project (mind you Mayor George also voted for the project while on council...). There was also alot of influence from developer Stark (what ever happened to his promised W117th project...funny) and other outside groups, but that discussion is for another day.

My point is, I would never trust a mayor who said unequivocally that they would never use it. No one can predict the future. I also think you're being slightly naive if you honestly think the average Lakewood citizen is really that fired up about eminent domain. Even your boy George hasn't said he'd never use it. I believe only RPD signed the pledge and look where that got him...

Bad handling and secrecy around a major project would cause the downfall of anyone. If George wasn't already so far behind right now, I'd say his handling of the Kaufman park issue would have done him in. It's made Mayor Cain look like a statesman in her handling of the West End.

[Bill Call]

Bad handling and secrecy around a major project would cause the downfall of anyone. If George wasn't already so far behind right now, I'd say his handling of the Kaufman park issue would have done him in. It's made Mayor Cain look like a statesman in her handling of the West End.

The saddest part of this whole episode is that the conduct of the Mayor and Mr. Jordan may have ruined a unique development opportunity.

As recently as six months ago the Drug Mart Plaza was valued at a reasonable $2 million. That would have implied a value of around $10 million for Kaufman Park. Those values would have now been skewed to the point that the development may be still born.

The Corral Group recently spent $16.4 million for a 12 acre development in South Euclid, about $1.3 million per acre. The recent sale of Drug Mart Plaza was for $5.7 million or $4.3 million an acre. That implies a value of $30 million an acre for Kaufman Park.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindeal ... xml&coll=2

Can any development in Lakewood work with land cost of $4.3 million an acre?

The group that bought Drug Mart Plaza are experienced real estate developers. What did they think they were buying, the plaza or Kaufman Park?

Are they really stupid enough to pay that kind of price for an aging shopping plaza or were they given assurances of a better deal down the road?

Why the large campaign contribution to the Mayor?

Mayor and Mr. Jordan: What is the dollar value of Kaufman Park? What would be a reasonable sale price?

Perhaps the City should offer the Glitz group the $2 million the plaza is worth. Then the City could develop the entire parcel and sell the completed project to an investor.

Why can't the City control its own destiny? Why are we relying on out of town developers to tell us what a park is worth and what type of development the City should accept?

And: While I am asking questions that will never be answered: Why the 50% increase in overtime cost in the fire department over a ONE YEAR periord?

[sharon kinsella]

Bryan -

First of all - I am anything but naive. I've been around a long, long time. Usually on a much broader venue than local politics.

Secondly - eminent domain is illegal for use in private development. It is legal for use in public, i.e. highways, right of ways etc.

Third - Tom George is not my boi.

Fourth - See how good your boi comes out after all this - how many truths are seen - how much follow through.

Fifth - Ask your boi where he plans to get the money to do all the marvelous things he says he will do. Federal money doesn't really give much to municipalities and the State has other problems.

Sixth - Did you ever consider that you can't cut taxes and spend money at the same time?

Don't believe what people say, believe what they do.

Sometimes there are reasons behind things that you will never know.

[Jeff Endress]

Why can't the City control its own destiny? Why are we relying on out of town developers to tell us what a park is worth and what type of development the City should accept?

Because, quite simply, the city lacks the funds necessary to pursue a project on its own, and is limited to using what little leverage it has in either approving or declining what those with the money want to do. Granted, if Kaufman is in play, the leverage increases significantly, but in most areas, all we can do is pass on plans brought in by the private developers that own the parcels.

Kaufman does present a unique opportunity. It presents an asset which would raise the city to an equal partner. I'm anxious to see how any final proposals reflect this partnership.

And: While I am asking questions that will never be answered: Why the 50% increase in overtime cost in the fire department over a ONE YEAR periord?

Bill, please stay on the issues.

Jeff

[Rick Uldricks]

deleted

[Bill Call]

And: While I am asking questions that will never be answered: Why the 50% increase in overtime cost in the fire department over a ONE YEAR periord?

Bill, please stay on the issues.

Jeff

Technically you are correct.

However, if the City had the $1.3 million we spent last year on fire department overtime perhaps the City would have the money for development. The City is also spending $1 miilion PER YEAR more for workers comp costs than it did in 2003. If the City had that $2.3 million dollars per year the City would have the money to control its own destiny. I am just a gadfly but a $2.3 million increase in controllable costs seems like a lot of money to me.

If the powers that be want to move these comments to a different thread they are free to do so under the title: "A Million here a Million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money".

[Dee Martinez]

However, if the City had the $1.3 million we spent last year on fire department overtime perhaps the City would have the money for development. .

Since when are cities in the "development" business?

Beyond that, Kaufmann Park isn't "worth" 50 cents.

It could also be "worth" $500 million.

Any asset is "worth" an agreed price between buyer and seller.

PS If your formula were stricly applied, the homeowners adjacent to the park would see their tax valuation jump into the neighborhood of $600,000. Pretty pricey for French and Andrews, dont you think?

[sharon kinsella]

Bill -

Just curious.

Do you ever take the side of a working stiff?

[Jeff Endress]

However, if the City had the $1.3 million we spent last year on fire department overtime perhaps the City would have the money for development.

Bill

Given the normal tone of your posts, what are the chances that you would:
1) Trust the Lakewood CIty Government to actually undertake developement, and ;
2) Not demand that such savings be used to decrease the tax burden of the residents.

Just wondering

Jeff

[Shawn Juris]

Can I get a clarification on Kate's earlier question. So the logic behind Jim's claim that Fitzgerald would sell Kaufman was based on him not answering a question which included the phrase "without qualification". So this was just an interpretation and not something that was actually said, right?

[Bryan Schwegler]

Bryan -

First of all - I am anything but naive. I've been around a long, long time. Usually on a much broader venue than local politics.

I think you're confusing being around a long time with being an expert on all things. . I'm telling you the average Lakewood resident is not that passionate about eminent domain.

Secondly - eminent domain is illegal for use in private development. It is legal for use in public, i.e. highways, right of ways etc.

Unless the private development is for the public good. I know that context is debatable, but it is the decision of the US Supreme Court.

Third - Tom George is not my boi.

I would have assumed so with all your attacks on Fitzgerald. Who are you supporting then? Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Don't believe what people say, believe what they do.

Sometimes there are reasons behind things that you will never know.

I'm sure...I haven't "been around long enough" right?

I agree with your thought fully on the watch what people do part. Just look at the money trail of this election cycle...it's very telling.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
I disagree with the statement" "I'm telling you the average Lakewood resident is not that passionate about eminent domain." In any poll I've seen the vast majority of Americans are passionately opposed to eminent domain. A person's home is and should be their castle. Elected officials should understand this.

If someone wants to sell they should be able to and if they don't they should not be forced to.

Many studies show (including a recent one done by the Federal Reserve Bank) that the use of eminent domain stifles economic development. So, if you want to have a surge of economic development eminent domain should not be employed.

I'm concerned the City Administration will give away a Park here, not put the property up for competitive bidding. They do not need any funds to place a property up for a competitive bid process. Nor are funds needed to issue a request for proposal. If the City Administration feels we would benefit from selling off a Park why don't they issue a open bid request for proposal on how developers or others would like to utilize the space and see what they would be willing to pay for the property. Then we as a City could look at all options presented and either select the best or we could decide we like the Park better than any of those ideas. This can all be done in the open, if our elected officials want to be open.

Finally, I'm concerned that this promise of replacing "green space" will be done using eminent domain. Eminent Domain for creating a park is a legitimate use. What an amazingly "ungreen" idea - Build a development on a park and then destroy good structures to create a park.

If the Mayor does not plan on placing the sale of our Park to open bid I hope he returns the funds he has received from the developer that will be profiting from the Park give away. It may be legal, but it isn't right. And I have to believe that any candidate for the Mayor of this great City wants to do the right thing.

[Shawn Juris]

At the center of this development is the desire for Drug Mart to upgrade their space. Has anyone heard if they will be doing so with the location further down Detroit, across from Rockport? Any updates on what Sakura, Dots, Howard Hanna/Smythe Cramer, Quizno's, Blockbuster, Radio Shack and the Tanning Salon think about all of this? Would they be moved and return or replaced?