The Observation Deck

As a candidate for Council, Ward 2, I have been deeply concerned about the rumors surrounding possible development at Kauffman Park. As a parent of small children, I am deeply concerned that green space/park space will be sold off and not replaced. As a resident, I favor smart development, but not at the expense of our children and families.

From what I've read this morning, it looks like there is a plan in place to sell the park, but no reasonable plan to replace it.

I oppose any sale of Kauffman Park. Going door to door over the last three months, I can say that there are hundreds of families that agree with me.

Dan Shields

This is the link to the PD article.

http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/st ... xml&coll=2

The quotes attributed to Planning Director seem, at least to me, that the City Administration are pro-actively looking to offload the 7-acre site, to the same company that recently purchased the strip mall, who made a significant contribution to the Mayor's re-elction campaign.

Lakewood has little open space, green space - we do not need to sell the assets we have.

Dan Shields wrote: I oppose any sale of Kauffman Park. Going door to door over the last three months, I can say that there are hundreds of families that agree with me.

Dan Shields

I applaud Dan Shields for going on record regarding this very important issue and invite all other candidates to do the same.

http://www.ci.lakewood.oh.us/pdf/2007_D ... _Aug28.pdf

Slides 47 and 50.

"Future Mixed Use Development Site" - Presented on August 28th.

Today's PD article reminded me of a question someone else asked earlier. The question was in regards to the process of selling Kaufmann. If there was an answer I missed it and I apologize. If that is the case would someone remind me what the answer was. A brief re-cap of the question is...Would it have to go out to bids and what other restrictions exist in the selling of Lakewood property?

Same subject, different question/concern. Let's imagine the park sells for 5 million. Please note that I have no idea of the value and I am using that number to help my questions make sense.

1-Could a law be passed that says the money must go towards parks improvements?

2-If that was possible, could it be written in such a way that the 5 million is kept seperate so that it doesn't become a part of the general fund?
*My concern is that this money replaces the money currently going towards the parks department. Grabbing numbers again, but if the parks budget is currently 1 million a year, I don't want to see that million put into the general fund for five years while this 5 million covers the cost of the parks dept. If that happens, what do we do five years from now when the proceeds of the sale are gone and we need to fund the parks dept?

These questions make sense in my head but I sometimes do a poor job of expressing what I'm thinking. Thanks in advance for any help.

I just read the PD article and my blood is boiling. I value Jim's efforts to build a positive Lakewood brand. What brand is Thomas Jordon building? That Lakewood is a pathetic town willing to sell off precious assets because they can't seem to figure out how to make a park more accessible? Boy. Kaufmann Park was my extended backyard for 10 years or so but apparently since I moved in 2001 they must have put a moat around it because apparently now it is only accessible by steps leading down a scary 30 foot drop.

Where does Mr. Jordon get off saying "no one goes into the park casually"? First off, what does that mean? Entering the park at a meandering pace whilst whistling? Did he conduct a use study to back that up? My daughter and her friends used Kaufmann Park as a central meeting place all summer and frequently use it for after school meet ups. She has friends who live in just about every elementary school district in town and they find this location the best location for most to meet. If the mayor and Mr. Jordon keep it up there will be a lot of parents who won't let their children go there anymore, since they paint it as an isolated location that is just about impossible to police. But that's the plan isn't it? Keep talking about how worthless it is and eventually it will come true.

The Kaufmann Park I know is a very different place. It's the place where children drag their sleds to in the winter to go down its various hills. It's the place where the ballpark lit up our summer nights so we never needed to use bug attracting outdoor lights. It's the place from which the sound of cheering filled the air. It's the place where I would watch an older woman scavenge for dandelion greens and mushrooms, gathering them up in her apron.

Kaufmann Parks remains a community asset that could be improved but should remain a community-owned asset. If only the city had spent the $20,000 or $30,000 on a plan to improve the park; not to get a plan to justify giving it away.

"Tom Petrus, vice president of the multi-housing group at Grubb & Ellis, is familiar with Lakewood property. New office space is in demand, and finding tenants for such a development would not be hard, he said."

Um, why do we need new office space? Seems to me that the occupancy of many of the Lakewood Center Buildings is dwindling. Dramatically. Not only that, but I have also been noticing many office for rent signs on different commercial buildings up and down Madison. I would think they would be perfect for small businesses.

Why doesn't anyone believe in renovation anymore? That's what my company is doing...

Also, I too am glad someone running for political office has gone on record concerning Kaufman park.

Has anyone read the release from the City posted on the Observer's home page? It's in regard to the National League of Cities inviting Lakewood to receive technical assistance in support of the next phase of Youth Master Planning.

This is great news, especially since the other cities selected are so much larger.

HOWEVER, I have to question Mayor George's sincerity. He is quoted as saying "Under the George Administration, Youth and Recreation are a top priority."

But we might sell 7 acres of park space for development? And our parks generally are unkempt and in disrepair? How does that support Youth and Recreation?

This entire Kaufman Park issue has really been handled very badly. Trial balloons with half formulated "plans" that have the net effect of creating a huge push back before we even know what we're actually discussing. All we "know" is there are discussions about selling 7 acres of green space. If that is all there is to the "plan", we all have every reason to be outraged. But, I for one, will reserve final judgment until a final formulation is presented. Hopefully, there will be significant elements of new, substitute green spaces that would make a completely formulated plan palatable. But, even if that necessary element is present in the final proposals, I suspect that the manner in which this has been handled, spells its doom.

Jeff

Jeff Endress wrote:This entire Kaufman Park issue has really been handled very badly. Trial balloons with half formulated "plans" that have the net effect of creating a huge push back before we even know what we're actually discussing. All we "know" is there are discussions about selling 7 acres of green space. If that is all there is to the "plan", we all have every reason to be outraged. But, I for one, will reserve final judgment until a final formulation is presented.

Companies pay a good deal of money for "final formulations," many do not take too much concern for public opinion after such plans are made and go forth to make them concrete. Waiting for those plans may mean it is too late to prevent them. If the community gets hints of ideas that are being talked out, the resulting discussions can be monitored by the investors to help guide those final formulations into an idea more "palatable" to the general public.

It is my opinion as well as others, that public opinion should be involved from the start of any development such as the one transpiring with Kaufman Park. This is a public park we are talking about, not a privately owned piece of property.

One concern I have is the idea of replacing the park with the same amount of park land in other areas. If this means the city buying something like Franklin School (or any other de-commissioned school) and turning it into a city owned park I think that is doublespeak This is already a park where kids play. The new park area should be reclaimed property.

Well it seems to me that Giltz & Associates has spent $5.7 million on a trial balloon. Does that make sense to anyone? Not to me unless there is more going on that we don't yet know.

As I've stated before, I'm not against redevelopment. But we should as residents and taxpayers should be appraised of the facts. This is a public resource that will be difficult and very expensive to replace.

One other thought comes to mind. Who is the proposed green space being designed for? I think of Kauffman Park not as a ballfield but as a multi-use area. My kids have enjoyed the park for sled riding, plane flying, mini golf, time spent on the playground equipment, baseball practice (on the diamond as well as by the backstop in the NE corner). I've seen parents playing with their kids, others engaged in pick up football games, folks working on their golf swings etc. Will this translate well into a smaller area near Detroit Ave? You be the judge. Just because my kids are "aging out" should I no longer care about the younger residents of the community?

Hey folks, a quick post now, and I'll post a more complete response in the next couple days. Dan, you're right, there's a lot of important concerns to address re: Kauffman Park.

I'd like to broaden this discussion to current safety and maintenance problems with Kauffman Park. The park's present poor condition (safety, noise, trash, alcohol and drug use) make it frequently unusable by families. Little Links remains closed for several summers despite a sign saying it will be renovated. We're neglecting this park in the heart of our city.

As explained in my safety plan, we need to increase presence of safety forces at parks and playgrounds to keep our parks safe and usable. (See http://tombullockforlakewood.com/files/ ... y_Plan.pdf )

Re: Development: At a minumum, City Hall should be organizing public briefings along the lines of the school building redevelopment meetings to answer questions and allow citizen input. I am sure the school construction plans improved after several rounds of citizen ideas and feedback.

Undisclosed development plans don't work--they lead to the confusion and concern we're seeing. I am not informed enough to intelligently comment about the proposed Kauffman Park development, since I only know what has been reported in the papers. I'd like to keep an open mind, but we need a lot more information before we know whether this is an appropriate development or a bad deal. I hope City Hall will be providing more details right away.

1 acre = 43K sq ft
normal housing parcel in Lakewood = 5K sq ft
7 acres needed
That's 60 homes. I assume it must be homes since a major part of this argument is based on the premise that a diamond doesn't belong in the center of retail an no matter where you go on Detroit or Madison someone will argue that it is the center of retail/commercial activity. Apartment buildings? Maybe but many could still be considered too prime of development to be "wasted" on a park.
So back to the numbers
average home sale= $130K
Property acquisition = $7.8 million
Demolition, landscaping, equipment, maintenence?

Hope this deal is for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million.

Shawn Juris wrote: Hope this deal is for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million.

Glitz paid $6 million per acre for a strip mall that will have to be demolished to make way for the new project.

To these eyes that means Kaufman Park is worth at least $35 million dollars. Anything less than that would be ..... RCP... not enough.

The City gave away land to Beck Center and got nothing in return.

The City gave away land for Marc's Plaza and ended up with a project that was far less than promised.

The City gave away Lakewood hospital for one tenth its true rental value.

Is the City now prepared to give away 7 acres of park land at a 70% discount? It seems so.

I am really perplexed by Tom Jordan's statements that proceeds would be used to maintain current parks. Even by government standards $35 million for playground equipment is a lot of money. Or is he hinting that the land will be given away?

How can City officials can talk about plans for the park out of one side of their mouths and insist that there are no plans out of the other side of their mouths.

I am quite prepared to sell Kaufman Park for the 35 to 45 million the land is worth. I am not prepared to support the sale of that property to reward the Mayor's most generous campaign contributors.

Where is the outrage?