The Observation Deck

Lynn -

Click on the address on Tom Jordans post - then click on city news on the website.

On the right hand where it's talking about the presentation there is a box.
Click on the August 20007 pdf.

It's all there.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:My point was that at least three concil members claimed THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of this. Then we hear they apporved the study?/

Jim, that's a good point. But I think some clarification is in order. I don't speak for other councilmembers, but for myself I say that my vote to approve the study (which was pitched as an opportunity to study mainly whether the ball diamond could be relocated) is the extent to which I have any knowledge about the development. Traditionally, the administration plays these close to the vest until it's time for Council to get involved from a heavy funding standpoint. It was similar when the Cliffs project was in the mix; we more or less became aware of the plans when we were asked to approve the TIF.

There has been some mention of the Giltz firm, for example. I'm not privy to those folks, nor to any plans they may have discussed with Tom Jordan's department. I don't know what, for instance, would be considered the anchor tenant of a commercial development; I don't know what would be the layout, other than what's been loosely proposed in the Main Street plans online.

I believe other councilmembers share my experiences with this, but I may be mistaken. As you know, this is not my ward. But I thought I'd point out the distinction between Council approving a study of our park space (for the purposes of determining whether a development could work) and the administration having more detailed discussions of what's actually in the fold.

Kevin Butler
(City Council, Ward 1)

Did council know of the parameters and instructions when they voted for the "evaluation"?

Boy, I would certainly hope so. While this discussion tends to talk of "the city" doing this or that, the reality is that the executive (that would be the Mayor or members of his executive departments) may propose an action, The fact remains that before anything can be done, it is the Legislative body (that would be council) has to approve it.

I would hope that our Council, prior to approving anything, would know exactly what they were approving, and had asked the questions necessary to have this understanding. This could be one reason why all of the "I didn't know anything about this" positions are less than believable.

It strikes me as odd that anyone who was asked to vote on a feasibility study to discuss relocation of the Kaufman facilities without asking "why do we need this study". "Is the Executive branch thinking about something that would result in changes at this park?"

But, for whatever it's worth, you simply will never be able to successfully do any civic developmental plans by plebiscite. If and when a plan is formulated:

There will be a public process. If the due diligence process reveals that the development will not result in enhanced recreational opportunities for Lakewood residents, there will be no public investment or sale of land. Any sale of land will be sold at fair market value as established through an appraisal process. There are numerous zoning issues that would go before a public meeting of the Planning Commission that is a public process. The authorization to sell land by charter will require approval of City Council and further public hearings. I welcome everyone’s input when and if a specific proposal is put forth. In the interim, we will attempt to keep you informed. Please understand that much of the press on any topic is frequently limited in space and in content. I hope this post is more helpful to you. Any redevelopment of the site will be done in a thoughtful, planned, and public approach.

Jeff[/quote]

Kevin

Thanks as always for the note, and entering the LO Mosh Pit.


.

Jeff Endress wrote:I would hope that our Council, prior to approving anything, would know exactly what they were approving, and had asked the questions necessary to have this understanding. This could be one reason why all of the "I didn't know anything about this" positions are less than believable.

This is sage, Jeff, and the answer (from me at least) is yes, we knew that the study was for the purposes of determining whether the ball diamond was able to be relocated -- so that a development at the park could be explored more fully. I might have been clearer about that. We vetted the funding request pretty thoroughly in committee. But again, we did not get into the minutiae of the development proposal, because the city's position was that there weren't any fine details to share at that point.

Hi,
For those interested in seeing the plan: http://www.ci.lakewood.oh.us./pdf/2007_ ... _Aug28.pdf

Thanks to those who help point out where it is.

Don
It's not a "PLAN" (anymore than the peninsula is a "PLAN"). It's merely a dream, a projection, a possibility, embodied in a sketch. Like the better mousetrap penned on a cocktail napkin.

Councilman Butler: As always, thanks for the input.

But I thought I'd point out the distinction between Council approving a study of our park space (for the purposes of determining whether a development could work)

This is called due diligence. Gathering enough information to determine IF a plan should be submitted (or approved) and its parameters. Corporations in acquisition may spend months or years before making an actual proposal on which the stakeholders may vote. I would expect nothing less of our elected officials.

and the administration having more detailed discussions of what's actually in the fold.

we did not get into the minutiae of the development proposal, because the city's position was that there weren't any fine details to share at that point.

Not surprising. Not alarming. Disclosure of plan details can't be done until they exist, and that can't occur until the due diligence phase has been completed. After that, it's off to the various boards for zoning, architectural review, etc. Then to the Council for review, discussion and decision. Then to the voters if they disagree with the council.

OR, maybe there's a better way.

Let's do it by plebiscite!!! We can all vote on the "PLAN"!!! Democracy at work.

All those against the "plan", (even though there is no "plan"), please enumerate your objections. Include in your discussion the proposed TIF, land exchange, grants and development bonds. Discuss the proposed use of eminent domain (if you think that's a part of the "plan"). Please give some indication of any objection to anchor tenants (if your vision of the "plan" includes any), and the cost and size of the residential units (if any are included). Also, please include a discussion of the impact on the parking issue. Lastly discuss the impact of how exchange/loss/improvement (depending on what you believe may happen)of green space will impact ball players from Bay and Lakewood Bars. Extra credit for an analysis of the railroad noise factor and its impact on the upper stories of the residential portion of the "plan" (if any).

All those in favor, the same issues.

If anyone would choose to wait until there is a plan that we can discuss, indicate your vote my ignoring this spectral discussion, as I will. I'll wait to cast my vote until I know what's on the table. In the meantime, I'll be engaged in a more productive enterprise. I'm going to tilt at windmills and chase a dragon.

Jeff[/quote]

Hi,

Wow Jeff,

I sincerely apologize if the word "PLAN" offended you. I certainly meant no disrespect. The word I should have used was "PRESENTATION". I know Lynn had trouble finding it and with Sharon's assistance I was able to locate the site that Mr. Jordan had discussed and thought I would make it easier for everyone to find. I do think you may have over-reacted a bit.

But to equate either The Penninsula or this plan with a project penned on a cocktail napkin is a bit unfair. I know that Savannah did her thesis on this, had experts both in academia and in the real world assisting and spent many, many months on this thesis. She is well aware that a great deal more work needs to be done and is working on funding for a feasibility study

Also in viewing this "PRESENTATION" it is apparent that these individuals also have worked quite hard on their vision. That again isn't saying that more work doesn't need to be done.

However if any lesson should have been learned from the West End situation it is that working with the citizens as Mr. Jordan has suggested is the best approach for a successful project. And I can hardly wait to hear more.

Jeff Endress wrote:Not surprising. Not alarming. Disclosure of plan details can't be done until they exist, and that can't occur until the due diligence phase has been completed. After that, it's off to the various boards for zoning, architectural review, etc. Then to the Council for review, discussion and decision. Then to the voters if they disagree with the council.
Jeff

But Jeff, this is a message board where we can discuss the goings-on in our city. One of those issues is currently whether the city is thinking of, possibly entertaining, the concept of selling public park space. That is a perfect topic of discussion. When, and if, it gets to the point of a developer submitting proposals for review, I'm sure there'll be another round of discussion and debate.

The presentation that included slides 47 and 50 are indicative of the direction the Administration wish to proceed with - otherwise it wouldn't have been presented. That alone is worthy of discussion. Add in all the other dots to be connected - and the end result is a topic with now 15 pages/12,000 view. (edit - reference to the other Park thread - although this one is also generating a healthy discussion aswell) The Deck doing what it does best - discussing Lakewood issues.

Jeff Endress wrote: Extra credit for an analysis of the railroad noise factor and its impact on the upper stories of the residential portion of the "plan" (if any).
Jeff

One of those issues is currently whether the city is thinking of, possibly entertaining, the concept of selling public park space. That is a perfect topic of discussion

But alas, people aren't discussing, as they do in areas of the Giant Eagle property, vacant store fronts, or redevelopment dreams, their wish lists, or ways to achieve them. Instead they are lining up, for or against, a "plan" which does not exist, and to whatever degree it does, is so unfocused and without detail, it is incapable of discussion.

When, and if, it gets to the point of a developer submitting proposals for review

......
.......people will already have made their decisions, based upon the within discussion. Result? When there is a plan with enough meat on its bones to merit a good, hard, long look it will be DOA.

Gotta run, my unicorn just escaped its paddock!

Jeff

Jeff Endress wrote:Gotta run, my unicorn just escaped its paddock!

Jeff

Jeff, while we might not see eye-to-eye on what is worthy of discussion on a messageboard, my flying pig saw your unicorn on it's way to Kaufman to graze on the grass

edit/addition

Council President Robert Seelie said that could involve fixing up a baseball diamond at Cove Park to make up for the loss of a field at Kauffman. Green space could also be left in the front of the Kauffman Park development for a passive park, he added.

"This could be a real big thing," Seelie said. "It could have some new condos as part of it, kind of like a mini West End."

http://www.cleveland.com/lakewoodsunpos ... xml&coll=4

Robert Seelie on Thursday, August 30, 2007 talking of new condos and a "kind of like a mini West End" development.

Such a vision, articulated by Council President, is a valid topic of discussion, IMO.

deleted

Rick Uldricks wrote:

Richard Cole wrote: Robert Seelie on Thursday, August 30, 2007 talking of new condos and a "kind of like a mini West End" development.

Who is Robert Seelie?

http://www.ci.lakewood.oh.us/citygovern ... mbers.html

Jeff, while we might not see eye-to-eye on what is worthy of discussion on a messageboard, my flying pig saw your unicorn on it's way to Kaufman to graze on the grass

Afterwards, they both retired to the imaginary Appleby's (right next to the spectral Trader Joe's) to review the Railroad/condo noise impact study...

Jeff