Pruning an Overgrown Tree so that it May Bear Fruit Again

[Valerie Molinski]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

The midwest and the rust belt cities in particular could really benefit from such a downsize. Look at what the urban growth boundary did for Portland, Or. Similar idea. We have not had the influx of population in the cities here nor the insane property value increase like other cities have. Couple that with mass exodus due to job loss and it's a recipe for disaster. The sprawl here is ridiculous and has done nothing but bleed metro areas here dry in favor of exurbs.

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

"The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing."

[Bill Call]

"The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing."

Growth and development are good. Houses, retail buildings, commercial buildings and traffic patterns become obsolete over time. However, Valerie, you found an interesting idea that has some relevence to Lakewood.

For quite a while I've thought that Lakewood has about 1,000 too many housing units, too little green space and a poor retail environment. Eliminating 1,000 housing units might open up an opportunity replace those units with more parks, more retail and more modern housing. In general the housing units I am thinking of are apartment buildings with too few or no parking spaces, commercial buildings with many vacancies and houses scattered here and there that have little appeal to the modern buyer.

Lakewood has about 1,700 vacant housing units. That is about 5% of the total which isn't bad. The historical norm is about 1,200 to 1,400. Removing 1,000 of the worst offenders would increase the value of those that remain.

There is an attitude in some City Halls that every house should be preserved and that every neighborhood will last forever. I think that attitude is changing but no fast enough.

Years ago the City of Lakewood spent $500,000 to repave Clifton Prado. I thought at the time that the money would have been better spent tearing down Clifton Prado. City Hall disagreed.

[ryan costa]

when you are friendly to attracting retirees...

you have residents who don't commit nuisance crime. and don't have kids in school soaking up tax dollars.

however...many retiree's end up taking care of illegitimate grandkids anyways.

retiree's can't pay the big property taxes. even with no mortgage payments hanging over their heads.

[Jim O'Bryan]

For quite a while I've thought that Lakewood has about 1,000 too many housing units, too little green space and a poor retail environment.

Valerie/Bill

I would suggest that downsizing a city is a last resort. Before Flint tried this Youngstown
has accomplished this but all they have succeeded at is downsizing. 50% of downtown
sits like a ghost town waiting for life again. While some call it a success, others wonder
at what?

Flint's plan makes more sense as vacant homes and businesses are right up there with
commercial malls in what it takes from a city to maintain. Parks are far cheaper to
maintain, but community gardens are the least costly of all.

For cities like Flint and Youngstown it makes sense. In my humble opinion, Lakewood is
not that desperate. There are many great ideas to fill rentals and homes in Lakewood
that have never been tried, or sadly overlooked, that could fill those homes, and I
maintain fill those homes at a higher rent than is being asked.

I would rather see Lakewood take on a plan to annex part of Cleveland and begin to
expand our borders. This was discussed during the first year of the Deck and what was
found out that a famous urban planner had actually written a story back in the 70s about
just such a scenario. That Cleveland would crush under its own size and lack of jobs and
that surrounding communities would be wise to acquire the land,and Cleveland would be
wise to sell them off. Of course this goes against the plans of CLE+ and Team Neo that
ask us to grab the Titanic's anchor, instead of the life boats.

A more responsible way to downsize if it is needed, is the plan to take some of the
densest streets north of Detroit and allow home owners to marry property. Where a
person can buy the house/lot next to them, and rebuild.

This has actually been going on in parts of West Clifton, where home owners have been
buying property behind them, enlarging their yards, and creating private entrances.

Lakewood has far too much going for it to give up right now.

Has the City of Lakewood ever advertised for residents? I know the LO used to and we
were pretty successful on the small level we tried.

.

[Bob Mehosky]

Jim,

I touched on this briefly in another thread, but I'm wondering if it's worth bringing up again?

If we're taking a look at what works and what would work in the future in Lakewood, it seems like it begins and ends with the housing stock. We don't have open land for industry or large retail / office developments, so it seems that it's unlikely we'll grow the tax base significantly in the near future.

Unfortunately, being as densely populated as we are, we've got a disproportionate need for city services, which require revenue.

I've been mulling this over for a few years, but I'm curious what other residents think:

1) Owner-occupied housing tends to be better maintained than purely rental units.
2) Rental homes tend to be used as short-term solutions, a transient population that may or may not choose to remain in Lakewood long-term - they've got no skin in the game, so they're not as concerned about maintaining or improving the long-term quality of life in Lakewood.
3) Judging from the experience I've had lately trying to rent my home, it seems like there's a glut of rental units available in the city. Rents have been stable, or maybe even declined over the past 8 years that I've owned my home.
4) I don't have data to back this up, but from my own observations and glancing at the blotters, it seems like rental properties utilize more city services (police, ems, etc).

In my mind, the most logical solution is to convert doubles to owner-occupied singles. Unfortunately, in most cases, that's a poor financial decision for the owner. The market value of a decently-maintained double is about equal to a single, or perhaps even a little higher. 0% loans are obviously not the answer.

Before we even consider the can of worms of "who's going to pay for all this???" , I'm wondering if people agree that non-owner-occupied doubles are a financial drain to the City's bottom line and if so, is the concept of converting doubles to owner-occupied singles even worth exploring?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim,

I touched on this briefly in another thread, but I'm wondering if it's worth bringing up again?

If we're taking a look at what works and what would work in the future in Lakewood, it seems like it begins and ends with the housing stock. We don't have open land for industry or large retail / office developments, so it seems that it's unlikely we'll grow the tax base significantly in the near future.

Unfortunately, being as densely populated as we are, we've got a disproportionate need for city services, which require revenue.

Bob

Housing stock is the key, the good news, we can do it better and easier than most. As outlined by Bill Call, retail is not the answer,and with advances in business, and
software, office space is not the growth industry promised in the Grow Lakewood Power
Point.

Two good ideas neither had a chance. Penisula, Annexing part of Cleveland. One offered
50 - 250 acres, the other can pull in Land Banked property Cleveland has zero plans for.
As they look to downsize, now is our chance.

1) Owner-occupied housing tends to be better maintained than purely rental units.

yes

2) Rental homes tend to be used as short-term solutions, a transient population that may or may not choose to remain in Lakewood long-term - they've got no skin in the game, so they're not as concerned about maintaining or improving the long-term quality of life in Lakewood.

Bob this is not true, depends on how you rent. David Anderson and I have properties
across from each others, well now his empire surrounds me. We have had very little
turn over in all the years we have been renting. This comes down to a very easy
equation, give them more than they can buy,and keep it immaculate.

With the tightening of credit, rentals will come back into its own. Lakewood is perfectly
suited for the boom. Well except for the schools closing. There are also a couple great
places to rent homes.

3) Judging from the experience I've had lately trying to rent my home, it seems like there's a glut of rental units available in the city. Rents have been stable, or maybe even declined over the past 8 years that I've owned my home.

Some rents have declined, some have risen.

4) I don't have data to back this up, but from my own observations and glancing at the blotters, it seems like rental properties utilize more city services (police, ems, etc).

I believe it is empty commercial, retail, commercial, urban rental

Before we even consider the can of worms of "who's going to pay for all this???" , I'm wondering if people agree that non-owner-occupied doubles are a financial drain to the City's bottom line and if so, is the concept of converting doubles to owner-occupied singles even worth exploring?

Bob, bad housing stock is a drain. Absentee landlords can also be a problem.

Doubles to singles have been explored by Stockman Architects for LA, the numbers
make nosense. As I mentioned at the time, I grew up in a triple we turned into a
single. We did not lock the back doors.

Maybe others have different experiences.


.

[Bob Mehosky]

Well, "nonsense" is a relative term......

I haven't prepared any formal plans for my house, but I'm estimating it would be anywhere from $25,000-$50,000 worth of work to convert it - and it would add zero to the value of my home in the short term.

The question is, is there $25,000-$50,000 worth of benefit to the city over the next 50 years if a multi-family house becomes a single-family house? Also, is there a benefit to an owner 20 years down the line if the majority of multi-family houses became singles?

The only way this could work is if it was a win for the city's bottom line and a win for a homeowner who wants to invest in Lakewood.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Well, "nonsense" is a relative term......

I haven't prepared any formal plans for my house, but I'm estimating it would be anywhere from $25,000-$50,000 worth of work to convert it - and it would add zero to the value of my home in the short term.

The question is, is there $25,000-$50,000 worth of benefit to the city over the next 50 years if a multi-family house becomes a single-family house? Also, is there a benefit to an owner 20 years down the line if the majority of multi-family houses became singles?

The only way this could work is if it was a win for the city's bottom line and a win for a homeowner who wants to invest in Lakewood.

Bob

That was supposed to be "no sense."

Nate Kelly has the numbers, and it was a very good thing that he had the city look at it
in case it ever does come up, but I really find it personally to be pretty hard to justify
the added expense which I thought was well north of $60,000.

This is why I thought it made sense one of the ideas from the first LakewoodAlive
meeting from one of the speakers, about marrying lots.

The real problem Lakewood has is as you have pointed out it is built out, and the bottom
has not dropped out of Lakewood as it has in Collinwood, Hough, Glenville, Detroit
Shoreway, etc. So many of the so called plans, are just hot air. Example Art Districts,
how can we compete with Collinwood, homes at $12,000 within sight of their art
district. Or the same in and around Detroit Shoreway's unbelievable effort to rebuild.
Then in the not too distant future is the massive Greater University Circle project, that
will bring homes from $300,000 - $2,000,000 with a 20+ year tax abatement, and all
sorts of incredible pluses including homes nearby like my friends place in East Cleveland
that he purchased for $15,000 and would be worth $500,000 just ten blocks farther
south, and/or in 5 years,as the area builds out.

IMHO Lakewood has squandered our lead in this, by chasing Big Box stores and malls,
instead of actually looking at the future and what is needed to make us stand out in the
region. This is my number one frustration, before "we chase rabbits"* we should do
what is needed now to make things right. It is the regionalist that would prefer to see
Lakewood bottom out, close down and loose value, so that developers can buy us out
for pennies on the dollar, and redevelop. The short sightedness of a few killing what
we have and more importantly what makes us different.

.

* chasing rabbits, racing term for trying to explain things, that are could be more simply understood or fixed.

.

[Bob Mehosky]

You just hit on my point.....

Tax Abatement.

Cleveland's been pretty sucessful with tax abatement for new construction or renovated houses. It's been a key to the revival of Tremont, Detroit/Shoreway, Fairfax, etc.

There's be a hit to the city's bottom line, but I wonder how bad that would really be if we're (hopefully) drawing higher-salaried people to move in (and pay income tax) and reducing need for city services.

If you figure even $60,000 on the high end for a conversion, and local taxes as $3500 per year, that's a net cost to a homeowner of $25k for a fully updated and renovated home. Perhaps combine this with low/no interest loans spread out over 10 or 20 years.

I think you'd find some interest from existing and new homebuyers. If I can buy a double for $130k and have it completely updated for a net out of pocket cost of $25k would I do it? I think it's tempting.......Does that house have a future value of more than $155k? I think it would.

It's an investment by the city in the city.

[Jim O'Bryan]

You just hit on my point.....

Tax Abatement.

Cleveland's been pretty sucessful with tax abatement for new construction or renovated houses. It's been a key to the revival of Tremont, Detroit/Shoreway, Fairfax, etc.

There's be a hit to the city's bottom line, but I wonder how bad that would really be if we're (hopefully) drawing higher-salaried people to move in (and pay income tax) and reducing need for city services.

Bob

Tax Abatement

I have generally viewed Tax Abatement as nothing more than buying friends.

Cleveland with thousands of acres of empty space, or fore closed homes can take the
chance, not so sure.

Tremont? Are you sure it was the tax abatements that made Tremont successful? Or
did the tax abatements step into gentrify and destroy a rebuilding process? Tremont
is because of people like Chik Holkamp, Joe Warren, Steve Garee(All Lakewoodites)
that took a chance, had a vision, and built a community out of scrap.

Ohio City Cliff Brennan, Jim Dustin(Lakewoodites) going in and rebuilding one apartment at a time with friends, until it caught on. Now abatements ruining the mix. Warehouse
District Cliff Brennan with another Lakewoodite moving in to empty warehouse space
and turning them into lofts illegally, then landlords and building owners seeing the light
of a new way to keep their heads above water.

I am willing to bet Lakewood can get where we need to be without Tax Abatements but
everyone else giving them will make it tougher, but not impossible.

As for the dream you mention, it is so easy, you would not believe it. But with every
Big Box store, and intrusion into your street, and other residential streets we start to
ruin and destroy the very things that make Lakewood unique. Now the only question is
how can we educate the educators? To realize turning Lakewood into a mall will just
make Lakewood another yellow and black box on the shelf known as Cuyahoga County
or CLE+ yech!

If they really cared about Lakewood the steps would be so easy we could glide into a
new era of Lakewood that makes sense, is green, sustainable, and better off for a long
time to come. But are they willing to get real, and give up a little something? My bet
is no. I have watched them run blindly into wall after wall, even when warned there is
a wall coming! After all if you can put into a news release that "people come from far
and wide to view bour beautiful flowers in DowntowN Lakewood and shop." and you
make a name for yourself giving your self awards and accolades, you are certifiably
delusional, and probably in way over your head.

FWIW


.

[Bob Mehosky]

Jim,

I can appreciate the "buying friends" way of thinking, but really, isn't that all city government does?

Repairing streets = buying friends
Backyard trash pickup = buying friends
Building a community center = buying friends

Some people choose to take more advantage of what the city chooses to provide than others, but all have the opportunities.

The Cleveland neighborhoods obviously owe a great deal to the folks who stepped up and tried to make a better place when no one else would, but you can't deny that new construction, fueled by tax abatement and low-interest mortgages got young professionals who wouldn't have considered those areas before to move in. Heck, before I bought my house, I came very close to buying new construction in Tremont.

Once you strip out the emotion, it's a basic financial question: Does a $140k double in which someone invests $60k to convert to a more modern single benefit the city more than the $3k per year they'd be receiving in property taxes from an unrenovated double?

I'm no economist, but it seems to be if the house next door is now worth $160k or $170k, my house is worth more by association. Plus I may feel a desire to fix mine up to keep up. If I know my neighbors are stable, I may feel a desire to stay in my home longer, reducing the number of houses on the market, further driving up home prices.

Good stuff Jim, I appreciate the feedback. Hopefully, we can get some other folks to drift over to this forum and pitch in.

[michael gill]

Bob,

buying a new house is a few years off for my lovely wife and me, but one thing we'll consider is a double to single conversion.

I haven't looked at the Lakewood Alive study Jim refers to, but I see lots of up-down doubles with two bedrooms per unit for sale for $80 to $120K, all over town, at least south of Clifton.

The way I see it, if you put in $25K for the conversion--connect the units, convert the upstairs kitchen to a 2nd floor laundry--you could get something somewhat unusual in Lakewood: 4 bedrooms, two full baths, extra rooms upstairs (living and dining), and--I repeat--2nd floor laundry (the plumbing already there from the kitchen) for $105K to $145K.

I'm not sure how the tax productivity works out, but I don't see how the home buyer loses.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim,

I can appreciate the "buying friends" way of thinking, but really, isn't that all city government does?

Repairing streets = buying friends
Backyard trash pickup = buying friends
Building a community center = buying friends

Bob

I would hope not.


Repairing streets = buying friends = Only when HUD money is used to pave the
wealthiest sections of Lakewood like Edgewater, Lake, etc. Where do the people live
who control that HUD oh never mind.
Backyard trash pickup = buying friends= brinning it back yes. keeping it, not so sure, one
of many ways to stand apart in the crowd. Amazing how many people want to know about
Lakewood getting rid of it. Has to be one of top three questions when speaking with
politicians outside of Lakewood. While I was not in favor of getting rid of it. I have to
respect Mayor FitzGerald for the way he took care of it.
Building a community center = buying friends = I would ask, was it needed?

The Cleveland neighborhoods obviously owe a great deal to the folks who stepped up and tried to make a better place when no one else would, but you can't deny that new construction, fueled by tax abatement and low-interest mortgages got young professionals who wouldn't have considered those areas before to move in. Heck, before I bought my house, I came very close to buying new construction in Tremont.

I would still say abatement allowed more to believe they are buying into cool. But
in the end why did you buy here? My point is it is pointless to compete where we
cannot win, or at best break even. Why not define/preserve brand. Market to that.
With less that 1,500 units empty, this seems so damn simple. Change a city to attract?
Define brand and market to those people. With the toward simplistic "regional" under
thinking, why not be the something different on the shelf? Seems really easy.

Like I said 85% there? Did we all move into this city hoping to change it to Legacy
Village? Or did we move here for the lake, the river, conveniences, cost of living, schools,
library, walkability, quaint, downtown, airport, shopping 10min. away, interesting starter
homes, that are not too run down, and the ability to move up in a community, in home
and expenses, no big malls and horrendous traffic jams?

This is what drives me nuts with this insane need to homogenize this city to fit the region,
it sells this city short. If the city really needed as much as you read or hear, why are
people here? Because it is a damn fine city to LIVE in!


Michael

Doubles, in comparable shape are usually about 30% - 50% more than the typical single
it sits next too. Of course there are rule breakers.
By nature, add another 30% - 50% for the improvements.

So if we pull out emotion, then the numbers just do not work.

Add emotion and anything make sense.

[Bob Mehosky]

Michael,

Jim's right about the comparable cost of doubles to singles. When I bought mine in 2001, I looked at plenty in that price range, and most needed at least 25k just to make them into a place I'd consider living in half of. Add in conversion costs, and it's a lot more.

I spent $147.5k on my house in 2001, which made it the most expensive house on a street that's 75% singles by about 20%. I love the neighbors, love the area, but sink $60k into making it a single? It just doesn't make financial sense. For $225k I can buy a pretty nice single in a different area, which might or might not be in Lakewood.

Jim, I can't speak for my friends that moved to those neighborhoods, but for me, the appeal was the opportunity to buy a house with modern conveniences so close to the city at a price that was comparable to much lesser houses in other areas. The "cool factor" of Tremont was definitely a selling point, but it wasn't the make or break reason.

I appreciate not wanting Lakewood to become Crocker Park or Legacy Villiage. I spent two years living four days a week in DC about a mile from Georgetown, which is what most of these developments are trying to be, but really only are a Hollywood copy of. I don't think anyone that chooses Lakewood is looking for that. They want the real thing, a walkable city with local shops, close to the Metroparks and close to Downtown.

Asking the city to invest in its housing stock is a pretty radical change from the way cities have run themselves for the last hundred years or so, but if we put the complete onus on homeowners to restore and/or modernize, I'm afraid that a city of homes rapidly turns into a city of absentee landlords.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim, I can't speak for my friends that moved to those neighborhoods, but for me, the appeal was the opportunity to buy a house with modern conveniences so close to the city at a price that was comparable to much lesser houses in other areas. The "cool factor" of Tremont was definitely a selling point, but it wasn't the make or break reason.

I appreciate not wanting Lakewood to become Crocker Park or Legacy Villiage. I spent two years living four days a week in DC about a mile from Georgetown, which is what most of these developments are trying to be, but really only are a Hollywood copy of. I don't think anyone that chooses Lakewood is looking for that. They want the real thing, a walkable city with local shops, close to the Metroparks and close to Downtown.

Asking the city to invest in its housing stock is a pretty radical change from the way cities have run themselves for the last hundred years or so, but if we put the complete onus on homeowners to restore and/or modernize, I'm afraid that a city of homes rapidly turns into a city of absentee landlords.

Bob

6 programs the city, or groups that are serious about "saving" the city could start, that
would fills homes, shore up the housing stock, bring in new buyers, which in turn can
make Lakewood more viable. To my knowledge the 6 programs cost the city nothing
over the long run.

But civic leaders are stuck in the past, they care more about FINALLY GETTING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT and their MALLS, than what is best for Lakewood on the whole. This
is completely fueled by two completely wrong thoughts. 1) Taxes will come down.
2) EVERYONE wants to live at Legacy Village. Both are lies, and red herrings being
promised by people that make their living from making people unsatisfied and wanting
more.

It borders on insane. Some in this city are so lost, I wonder why they bought, or stayed.

As I said, we merely need to fill 1,700 units, giving us maybe 5,000 - 7,000 more
people, which gives us more people paying taxes and spending money. Low estimate
would see on average 22 more customers a day in stores,restaurants, etc. That
would make every business in Lakewood more viable.

But what kind of award can you give yourself for filling rental units? All you do is bring in
those people, those renter people.You know.

There is a way to make your house 15% - 25% more valuable tomorrow. But those who
want to rejuvenate Lakewood "for all," will fight you till the end, should you even
suggest it.


Michael

The study was actually done by your favorite planning director Tom Jordan, father
of the "World Class Baseball Facilty that needed a massive parking lot so that we could
continue to develop the other thing Lakewood is known for Major League Ball Players. Cindy Stockman was the architect, and FFL did the funding. I was reported by LA, but the
city should have everything on file. As I mentioned I am glad the city studied it, now
if you or anyone else want to do it, they understand it.


.