What's up with The Cliffs project?

Sue Cliffel · Post by **Sue Cliffel** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:01 pm

Does anyone know what's happening with the Cliffs development on Sloane? We walked by the site the other night and it's filled with litter and looks terrible.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:10 pm

I've also been thinking that if they're not going to build there they should clean it up. It's a sore thumb right at the entrance to Lakewood and the damage to the cliff is probably irreparable.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed May 07, 2008 7:27 am

sharon kinsella wrote:I've also been thinking that if they're not going to build there they should clean it up. It's a sore thumb right at the entrance to Lakewood and the damage to the cliff is probably irreparable.

Maybe we can get someone from City Hall or Lakewood Alive to comment on this economic development.

Funny, we have some paperwork on The Cliffs that dates back to WestEnd days from Madeline Cain's office. Never remember this being mentioned as part of that project. However...

.

Stan Austin · Post by **Stan Austin** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:40 am

Observers---

At Monday night's council meeting there was a first reading to extend the TIF (Tax Increment Financing) bonds by another 9 months. Part of the discussion included having the developer make some landscaping improvements and removing the fence as part of the extension.
Also, it seems that Metroparks is still causing legal wrangling over access/right of way to the project.
That, combined with the sudden downturn in the real estate market has caused the delay in the project.

Stan Austin --- Your City Council Reporter

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:49 pm

Stan Austin wrote:Observers---

At Monday night's council meeting there was a first reading to extend the TIF (Tax Increment Financing) bonds by another 9 months. Part of the discussion included having the developer make some landscaping improvements and removing the fence as part of the extension.
Also, it seems that Metroparks is still causing legal wrangling over access/right of way to the project.
That, combined with the sudden downturn in the real estate market has caused the delay in the project.

Stan Austin --- Your City Council Reporter

Any updates?

.

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:37 am

A delay in the project?

Let's be honest here. The principles are in dire financial straits. For all intents and purposes, the project is dead in the water and now we're left with a mess to clean up and property that once generated income (from the homes on the land) has been reduced to vacant land with lowered taxable value.

It's a case of the city being duped by a "developer" who was never really in any position to carry out the grand plans.

What shall we call it? Foran's Folly?

Bill Davis · Post by **Bill Davis** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:15 pm

Grace:

Foran's Folly is an appropriate name. When I pass it daily, in my mind, it's called "The Dump on Slone".

I remember the Foran name being quite prominent during the Issue 47 wars. I also remember the blight issues. Isn't it interesting that the blight monkeys have now created "blight of mass destruction" in the West End?

If this country still had an EPA, they would have been prosecuted for what they have done to that green space.

As far as the city being duped, I can't believe the new Council and Mayor are even considering extending the TIF. Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice, shame on you.

Have a nice night,

Bill

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:49 am

I completely agree with you Bill and Grace. This parcel is truly blighted and the city can enact spot blight. I too see the irony in this.

However, I do believe that the city should give them a fair time to fix the area without taxpayers funds. Landowners should be given a chance to remedy blight instead of having the parcel that they can't take care of taken from them. But if the development is not going to begin this summer, the area needs to be fixed. The building department wouldn't allow anyone else to have this kind of "design" in their front yard.

I do agree with you Bill on the revoking of the TIF. Since we made the entire area including the 4 large apartments a TIF district, we really have little funds to do anything else in that area while we are being held hostage.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:03 am

Lynn Farris wrote:I completely agree with you Bill and Grace. This parcel is truly blighted and the city can enact spot blight. I too see the irony in this.

However, I do believe that the city should give them a fair time to fix the area without taxpayers funds. Landowners should be given a chance to remedy blight instead of having the parcel that they can't take care of taken from them. But if the development is not going to begin this summer, the area needs to be fixed. The building department wouldn't allow anyone else to have this kind of "design" in their front yard.

I do agree with you Bill on the revoking of the TIF. Since we made the entire area including the 4 large apartments a TIF district, we really have little funds to do anything else in that area while we are being held hostage.

Some of this I can discuss as I have questioned some of the things you are here.

The TIF is costing the city nothing, and with it extended it gives another more creditable developer to come in and save the project. If the parks can be brought on board, and that is a much larger if now.

As far was the WestEnd the Foran Group gave me handfuls of documents when they wanted a story, all of them are signed by Madeline Cain, which means this project was already underway during the number thingy battle, but to my knowledge was never mentioned. I cannot find it listed in any of the advertising, stories or other info.

Nor was it mentioned when the President and founder of LakewoodAlive Jay Foran had a meeting on housing, when we were beng educated to the need for economic development, and new style housing.

odd?

So what happened to the hotel that was planned for the area?

.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:27 pm

Jim,

I'm curious. Using your terms, say a "new credible developer" comes along. The TIF was approved assuming the "Cliff's Project. What if this other developer wants to do a significantly more modest design - which may be appropriate - but not worthy of a TIF. Or he/she wants to put something there that is legal but not something the city wants to support with a TIF?

The Foran group I assume has a right to sell the property to whoever they desire - but if the TIF is attached to it, does the city have to yank it back if they don't want to invest as heavily in the new design?

While the TIF costs the city nothing currently - does having it there eliminate the chances of giving it to the hotel that was planned for the other end of Sloane? (If there is still a hotel planned for that location?) Is this a lost opportunity cost? In other words, by having this TIF in place are we giving up other options with "more credible developers" for other locations in this TIF district?

The TIF is one aspect of it - the condition of the land being left like this is another. No where else in Lakewood would this be tolerated and I feel bad for the residents in the neighborhood that have to look at this eyesore. They should be required to make it at least an acceptable vacant lot.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:31 pm

Lynn

I could be confused on all of this but I thought the TIF was tied to the area. When B&B Appliance was looking at moving in they wanted to buy the building where Pride of Cleveland Scooters is. That was because Tom Jordan mentioned TIF money if they bought the building and rehabed it. The talk was TIF money for the area.

I am not sure it is tied to the Cliff Project.

Maybe we can get Nate Kelly to jump in and explain how this works.

Maybe he can also answer what happened to the hotel on Sloane.

I would agree about the way it looks. Hell of a way to welcome people to and from Lakewood.

.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:06 pm

So, I guess the question for for Nate would be if there is a change in the project, would the TIF have to be reapproved?

If I recall the West End Project, the TIF was in the Development Agreement which was spelled out in some detail. (Granted the appendices were blank.) If the company was sold to another developer and the plan was substantially the same, I could see the TIF remaining the same. Any other way, new company, new plan I think it has to be renegotiated.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:10 pm

Lynn Farris wrote: I'm curious. Using your terms, say a "new credible developer" comes along. The TIF was approved assuming the "Cliff's Project.

I want to answer the "new credible developer" part of this. We now know the developer for the WestEnd was probably going to use much of the Lakewood money to payoff the City of Cleveland, for their default on Shaker Square.

The Foran Group and their partner Montlack had great plans for this space. While I understand some of the others concern for green space at the time, I thought it was a beautiful idea. The question was could they pull it off.

Rockport has gone through three builders/developers and I am correct and in the end Forest City has had to call it quits with the sale of space to Applebees or so the rumor goes.

I would hope the next developer in this city has the ability to deliver as Tom Barrett did. Tom came in built Rosewood, and moved on. No muss no fuss. While the scale is different, shouldn't this be like the library and schools. Come in build out and move on.

Maybe that is not how it is done.

.

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:20 pm

Do you mean Rosewood?

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:30 pm

dl meckes wrote:Do you mean Rosewood?

yes

thank you, corrected it.

.