Kauffman Park - Plans to Redevelop?

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:50 pm

Sharon you said:

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

As one of only 2 people from Lakewood that has sat in on almost every state session on this issue since the Kelo case normally twice a month for two years, I can tell you that you are incorrect.

Eminent Domain can be used to cure blight. The definition that the State left for blight was so large a tractor trailer can drive through it and only 70 percent of the homes need to meet that definition. Then if you declare property blighted. It is up to the property owners to prove their property isn't blighted in court This is a very costly matter - which could easily exceed the value of the home. So most people don't fight it - it is too costly. http://lakewoodobserver.com/pdfs/Observ ... e%2015.pdf See page 7 of Julie and my article on this subject.

Additionally, Don makes an excellent point give this park away and you are completely justified in taking homes for another park. This type of occurance happens all the time.

I'm not saying that this is what is planned - just that your statement that it is impossible is incorrect. Mayor George has been very good about not using eminent domain so far - but he did vote for it as a councilman as did Councilman Fitzgerald... Councilman Demro was the only candidate that signed a pledge not to use it. Councilman Fitzgerald has stated that he would only use it as a last resort - which in my mind puts him on an even par with the Mayor on this topic.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:06 pm

Lynn Farris wrote:Councilman Fitzgerald has stated that he would only use it as a last resort - which in my mind puts him on an even par with the Mayor on this topic.

Lynn

At what point has MTG even hinted at eminent domain? Has not MTG kept his word about not using it? i have been to many meetings and while he might not have signed anything I have heard him say numerous times NO EMINENT DOMAIN.

I have not heard anything for Ed, so I am not saying one instead of the other, I am just amazed that MTG has worked so hard not to use it you are starting to paint him with the brush of maybe. Not fair at all.

Also in every plan I have seen or heard of much of the park is left. It is not like the strip mall will be the entire park. One plan brings the park to Detroit Avenue, across from the library that would be nice.

FWIW

.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:14 pm

Jim.

I was responding to Sharon saying that it was illegal. She is incorrect, there are many legal ways to do eminent domain right now in Ohio.

I stated that Mayor George has been very good in not using it and Ed has publicly stated that he would only use it as a last resort. But both in the past have voted to use it.

All are truthful statements. I would hope that neither would use it but using my favorite words from President Reagan Trust but verify.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:09 pm

Lynn -

I stand corrected. Thank you for your thoughtful explanation of the process. What a mess!

Richard Cole · Post by **Richard Cole** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:00 am

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Also in every plan I have seen or heard of much of the park is left. It is not like the strip mall will be the entire park. One plan brings the park to Detroit Avenue, across from the library that would be nice.

FWIW

Jim, this quote is worth a lot. How many plans are there? The planning Director is on record as saying there are no plans.

The Detroit Streetscape improvement plans - the ones that are published on the City website, indicate that where the DrugMart strip mall is currently located, is replaced with new buildings and a small green space - sort of a large planter. I would not characterize that as "One plan brings the park to Detroit Avenue".

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:06 am

But Richard if this topic isn't spun it might endanger the possibility of the library having a pretty green view. Sounds like another case of fuzzy math. Maybe LHS didn't teach greater than, less than and equal to when Jim and Mayor George went there?

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:01 pm

Richard Cole had mentioned the meeting where the wide view was presented for the streetscape proposal. From what I remember seeing and I think he mentioned, the park area was marked as mixed use. I wonder why the latest version of the observer does not show the view that includes the area including the park and diamond. Guess it depends on how you want to frame a discussion. I wonder if both sides of the story were really represented as we've been led to believe or if this was just a timely way to position yet another piece of campaign literature for the mayor. The bold message to remember to vote couldn't possibly be to link some connection between these projects and the incumbent could they?
This issue makes Fox News actually look fair and balanced.

chris richards · Post by **chris richards** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:15 pm

Shawn Juris wrote:I wonder why the latest version of the observer does not show the view that includes the area including the park and diamond. Guess it depends on how you want to frame a discussion.

I also find it interesting that they have a plan so far developed where as a few weeks ago, people claimed there was no plan. To comment on these renderings, the first thing I noticed was the two new streets and lack of parking for the two new buildings. The streets would have to be one way, and I would imagine cause terrible traffic on Detroit with people wanting to turn into one, turn out of another and people wanting to turn down Mars.

I also noticed that there is no room behind the new buildings for trucks to deliver inventory...

If one of the reasons to move the park is to have a view of it from the library, I don't see how this plan would accomplish that? The library would be looking onto the side of a new commercial building.

The rendering also indicates the strip with subway will be redeveloped as mixed use...

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:11 pm

That's a really sexy rendering that makes everything look so peaches and cream lovely. I had trouble getting my bearings while looking at it because it seems like the new plans are redeveloping a lot of areas and not really working with the parameters on the existing streetscape. Is there much truth to this potential view? Or is it the whitewash for people to get behind it and it will eventually change from the process of schematic design to actual fruition?

As I stated in my previous post in this thread, I am not opposed to the redevelopment of the area because it really could use some help. But the way people are going about this and the feigned ignorance on the subject are the things that really kill me. Also, to say that there is no plan and things are too early in the process to be commented on are disingenuous at best. Seeing a rendering like this tells me that people ARE thinking about the space and THIS IS the best time to weigh in on it so that concerns can be taken into consideration.

Kate McCarthy · Post by **Kate McCarthy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:11 pm

The campaign is over. This topic is no longer a political footbal. Can we honestly weigh in?

What do you really think of the redevelopment of Kauffman Park?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:12 pm