The Observation Deck

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bret Callentine wrote:6. Increase Income tax rate, but offer incentives for those that live and work in Lakewood.

Bret / Bryan
This is a solid idea. The city had spoken of a tax raise 7 years ago but shelved it. Then
through cooperation, the schools, library and city have taken turns, but the very real fact
is we will have a school bond issue coming up, a library levy, and possibly a city tax hike.
Can the residents stand for it? I would say the city would have a very hard time making
this point, if there is not some serious changes in the community.

Maybe they could incorporate something very simple in to a tax hike, that would take
away a real negative right now. Simply raise everyone's taxes to the same rate. Right
now if you work and live in Lakewood you pay a higher tax than those that do not. Why
not just raise everyone to the rate we pay? Instantly you get rid of the negatives
associated with living and working here.
.

You keep saying people who live in and work in Lakewood pay more taxes than people who live elsewhere, or work elsewhere.

Perhaps you could give an example of how this works; perhaps you can't.

Will Brown wrote:You keep saying people who live in and work in Lakewood pay more taxes than people who live elsewhere, or work elsewhere.

Perhaps you could give an example of how this works; perhaps you can't.

From a tax change in 2006...

http://lakewoodobserver.com/deck/viewtopic.php?t=1703&highlight=income+tax

Damn I wish this was fixed, all sorts of great topics in the archive!!!!!

The discussion before the change was adopted finally adopted in 2008.


.

Your citation does not support your position that people who live and work in Lakewood pay more municipal income tax than people who live in Lakewood, but work elsewhere. The hard fact that you seem unwilling or unable to grasp is that people who work outside Lakewood pay municipal income tax to the city where they work, and pay municipal income tax to Lakewood, albeit they get a partial credit against their Lakewood tax liability for there payments in the city where they work. That's a PARTIAL credit. If they got a full credit, their taxes paid would be identical, unless they worked in a jurisdiction where the income tax rate exceeded that in Lakewood, in which case they would still pay more tax than people who live and work in Lakewood.

Now tell us again how the peninsula daydream will pay for itself, and why so many people are lining up to invest in it.

Will Brown wrote:Your citation does not support your position that people who live and work in Lakewood pay more municipal income tax than people who live in Lakewood, but work elsewhere. The hard fact that you seem unwilling or unable to grasp is that people who work outside Lakewood pay municipal income tax to the city where they work, and pay municipal income tax to Lakewood, albeit they get a partial credit against their Lakewood tax liability for there payments in the city where they work. That's a PARTIAL credit. If they got a full credit, their taxes paid would be identical, unless they worked in a jurisdiction where the income tax rate exceeded that in Lakewood, in which case they would still pay more tax than people who live and work in Lakewood.

Now tell us again how the peninsula daydream will pay for itself, and why so many people are lining up to invest in it.

Well no.

It does.

The Peninsula Day Dream, would have cost as estimated $50 million. Creating between $200 and $250 million
dollars in property that does not exist in Lakewood. Now had Bob stark had his way it could have created
$300 Million + in dollars and potentially taxable properties. They were also conversations
that the Army Corp of Engineers would pay for half of the study and potentially up to
50% of the project cost. Not confirmed, but was also mentioned later in an article about
Cleveland wanting a peninsula in the Plain Dealer.

Why are they not lining up?

Oh Will, I don't know maybe because it was the work of a graduate student at CIA instead of some crap off
the drawing board of City Architecture? Maybe because the city merely allowed her 15 minutes to present
7 notebooks of information. Maybe because the city had just spent $30,000 on studying the front wall and
traffic pattern and did not want to look foolish, maybe jealousy, maybe her name...

You tell me, it made sense for a built out city. I cannot think of a single person that cannot see the benefit of
more acreage in a built out community. Now make that lakefront, new housing and you might just might create
a stir.

FWIW


.

forget about hundreds of millions, i'm talking about 1-2 million to get the initial dock/boardwalk built, then least out space for the seasonal kiosks. Won't be 100% paid for up front, but I believe the project will bring more money in as well as offer another desitnation for visitors.

You ask why nothing has happened about the Peninsula? Savannah spoke with a well connected environmentalist attorney who fought with a group behind him for approximately 10 years, I believe to get a jogging path in the park. He even raised the money to pay for the path. All the city had to do was agree to take the money and build it this wonderful project and that was hard to do. He loved the Peninsula project but thought it would take more than the approximately 10 years it took him to get the simple path.

It is so difficult to do anything different, even slightly different, like put a path in the park. We could have found the money for at least feasibility study but the city had to agree to that and they wouldn't.

Bret, I'm sure that this project would work in a different locale better, but the point is Lakewood needs the money from it - not some city that is already booming. Dubai has tons of these types of projects. It isn't a case of only being able to do this in one city in the world. Multiple cities can and are doing this, land reclamation is not a new concept, look at Boston, the Netherlands, Dubai. Even I think Burke Lakefront Airport is built on reclaimed land. This is nothing new or risky.

I do like the idea of the kiosks. Can't for the time being, the building for the swimming pool serve both the pool area and the park? Savannah showed a farmers market/kiosks area up the center in her plan. But she was also using the pool building, I think, for rental for sporting equipment.

Lynn Farris wrote:You ask why nothing has happened about the Peninsula? Savannah spoke with a well connected environmentalist attorney who fought with a group behind him for approximately 10 years, I believe to get a jogging path in the park. He even raised the money to pay for the path. All the city had to do was agree to take the money and build it this wonderful project and that was hard to do. He loved the Peninsula project but thought it would take more than the approximately 10 years it took him to get the simple path.

This is all so frustrating.

Well connected people and institutions and government agencies are determined to see that NOTHING gets done here. Lakewood is a stand alone City whose success defies the argument for regionalization. We must be taught a lesson.

The only idea that comes up with any frequency is to raise taxes to provide bigger raises for people who hate the City so much they can't stand the thought of living here. Brilliant!!!

While its fun to speculate on what might have been or dream about what projects might be built the reality is that our government and schools are run for the benefit of the employees and not the citizens.

That combination of outside hostility and inside narrow mindedness is deadly.

Until that changes all this speculation is just a waste of time.

Meanwhile...... our State representatives are working overtime to secure a retroactive change in tax law to save the City of Avon $500,000 per year.

Lynn Farris wrote:You ask why nothing has happened about the Peninsula?

There seems to be no shortage of nearby available dredged material for this project:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/kelleys_islands_old_limestone.html

Wouldn't this be a good time to revisit this topic with City and/or Port officials? Judging by the tone of this article, you might even get the PD on your side....

Matt Jones wrote:

Lynn Farris wrote:You ask why nothing has happened about the Peninsula?

There seems to be no shortage of nearby available dredged material for this project:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/kelleys_islands_old_limestone.html

Wouldn't this be a good time to revisit this topic with City and/or Port officials? Judging by the tone of this article, you might even get the PD on your side....

Nope it wouldn't. The dredged material is contaminatated and unsuitable for building. The land would basically become a brownfield.

Like Dike 14, it could potentially be used for something like a nature preserve, but not for building.

http://www.dike14.org/

The method they used for Dike 14 did not seal in the contaminated material so no building could be done - you are right. I believe there are good tested ways to seal the contaminated material so that it can be used. I'm certainly not an expert, but that is what an expert on land reclamation told me. I personally do not know how to do it - but it is worth looking at the feasibility of using this material.

Lynn Farris wrote:I believe there are good tested ways to seal the contaminated material so that it can be used.

It can definitely be done. My thought is to build a compacted clay liner over the contaminated stuff, much like you see on a landfill reclamation project. The question is whether or not the underlying dredged material would be structurally sound enough to support building foundation(s). There would also certainly be challenges involved with building such an earthen structure out in the lake. But I still think it's worth studying - the potential benefits to Lakewood are too great not to at least consider it.

Hi,
As with any aspect of actually constructing the Peninsula, experts would know how to do this properly. For design purposes, Savannah envisioned the perimeter of the Peninsula would basically be walls like the breakwater that protects Cleveland's waterfront. She thought the ground would be about 40ft above the Lake surface and the weatherfront of the Peninsula would have rock protection going out about 100 feet. So it would be quite solid.

Donald Farris wrote:Hi,
As with any aspect of actually constructing the Peninsula, experts would know how to do this properly. For design purposes, Savannah envisioned the perimeter of the Peninsula would basically be walls like the breakwater that protects Cleveland's waterfront. She thought the ground would be about 40ft above the Lake surface and the weatherfront of the Peninsula would have rock protection going out about 100 feet. So it would be quite solid.

Perhaps she should have actually looked at the breakwater along the Cleveland lakefront.

It is not close to 40 feet above the waterline, and she might have observed that the waves frequently wash over it, violently. I've forgotten how wide it is at the base, but 100 feet sounds a little skimpy, and while built of large blocks of stone, it is constantly under repair. It may be suitable for an unmanned lighthouse, but certainly not for residential or commercial use.

I wonder what the people with lakefront property would think of the complete obliteration of the view they paid so much for; possibly they would tie it up in court for a couple of decades (recall the extension of Clifton through Clifton Park). And are you prepared to compensate them for the reduction in their properties' value if you turn their view into a lagoon full of dead fish?

Its past time to abandon this school project and move into the real world.

Will Brown wrote:Its past time to abandon this school project and move into the real world.

I agree, while the peninsula is a creative fantasy how does it relate to the topic of this tread particularly in the near term?

First what I think our leaders will do.
1) a $10 per household a monthly sanitation fee. Everybody's doing it.
2) Reduce the income tax credit for those paying earning and income tax in other communities. They could argue that it isn't a tax increase.
3) Additional cuts. None of these will come up until after the September primary election.

What I think should be done.
1) Enforce the payment of income tax and housing permits by landlords. I can't say exactly how many dollars this might raise but I do know how easy it is to evade compliance. Investigating and prosecuting these cheats could be labor intensive and costly, but I would pick the low hanging fruit first. Perhaps this could even be out-sourced for a percentage.
2) Reinstitute assessments for street improvements. Until the early 90s' that is how it was done. It only ended when they began paving eligible streets with CDBG funds and water funds (when they where putting in new waterlines). It was to politically difficult to explain why some needed to pay and others not. Everyone wants free street paving. New strict guidelines would need to be instituted regarding assessments. The old/current assessment appeal system was purely political, those that bitched, whined and got the best turnout at the meeting got the best deal. Basically if your street surface reaches the expected life span...you should pay the full assessment.
3) Help make Lakewood's rental real estate as marketable and profitable as possible. The rental (residential and commercial) real estate market is by far the largest private sector industry in Lakewood. We need to encourage and support it so that it is as successful as possible. If they are successful the property values stay solid and they pay income tax. One suggestion is to offer some kind of incentive to Lakewood residents (even if they don't live in the property) to buy, update and rent out properties. I know most of the posters on this board hate the rental property business owners, but I don't care how many doubles we convert into oversized $300,000 single homes this industry will be our largest for the foreseeable future.

Bill

Will you said:
I wonder what the people with lakefront property would think of the complete obliteration of the view they paid so much for; possibly they would tie it up in court for a couple of decades (recall the extension of Clifton through Clifton Park). And are you prepared to compensate them for the reduction in their properties' value if you turn their view into a lagoon full of dead fish?

It is too bad Will, that you did not get to hear a presentation or discuss this project with Savannah personally.

One of the reasons to do this is to help the people with Lakefront Property. The people that live on the lake have been hit very badly with erosion. She received many letters and e-mails from these people indicating that this would stop the erosion and they fully supported it. I personally know of one person that has spent over a quarter of a million dollars to protect their home from the cliff's erosion - this has the potential to save these homeowners an incredible amount of money and increase their property value. This would not hurt the view and interestingly enough, it helps fish. This was evaluated with a variety of environmental engineers. The shape of it creates a nice beach on one side, which doesn't have to be replenished and a deep water area for a marina on the other side, which won't require dreging. She spent considerable time studying the shape etc.

However, no one is suggesting implementing this without a good feasibility study and getting all parties involved. There have been some good suggestions by others which would improve it. One large developer thought the main cost was in the edges and wanted it fatter.

The project on Clifton you mentioned, took some of the nicest homes in Lakewood, split a beautiful neighborhood in half and cost the city and the schools a great deal in terms of the loss of property tax. Plus, it moved the flow of traffic to Lake, a residential area.

Savannah's proposal generates an estimated 5 million dollars of tax revenue a year which has been reviewed by individuals in municipal finance. No one, particularly in this economy, wants property tax to increase. (Or any tax.) No one want to loose services either.

This is one way to increase revenues significantly without increasing taxes, loosing services and without eminent domain. Win, Win, Win.