The Observation Deck

I just called down to the Cuyahoga Land Bank and asked about a random vacant lot owned by the Cuyahoga Land Bank. I told the secretary that I was interested in a random vacant lot on the near west side. I then asked how I would go about acquiring the vacant lot for free. I asked if there was a program or special requirements I needed to meet in order to acquire this vacant lot at no charge. The secretary told me that the Cuyahoga Land Bank does not give away their property for free. When I asked her about two vacant lots in Lakewood that werre given away for $0, she had no answer. I told her that I would do more research on my end and told her to enjoy her evening.

Bottom line: Cuyahoga Land Bank employee states that they do not give away properties or vacant lots free of charge. Yet, I find this:
Why does the Cuyahoga Land Bank state that they do not give away property for free, but then do the exact same thing? It is bad enough that City Hall and the Cuyahoga Land Bank appear to allegedly be stealing homes from the disadvantaged, elderly, and terminally ill and demolishing them. Now they are going to give property away for free to certain people? Wouldn't it be in their best interest to sell it for at least a small sum of money to help recoup demolition costs? Regardless if the money comes from HUD, County, State, etc. the taxpayers are footing the bill.

What is going on here?

Lori Allen _ wrote:The Board of Control meeting agenda for 9/19/16 states "amend - demolition of nuisance property at 12318 Plover". Amend means to change. What are they changing? The demolition is job is already done.

I believe the contractor discovered a gas well on the site during demolition and needed to extract it, which cost a relatively small but additional amount of money.

Meet this property at 1482 W. 117th St. It was a brick, four-suite apartment building built in 1917. In 2009, City Hall declared this property a nuisance. In February 2010, City Hall acquired this property at a sheriff's sale for $55,000. However, according to the sheriff's office, this property was never put up for public bid at a public sheriff's sale. In other words, it appears that Cuyahoga County sold this property to City Hall without any competitive bid process. The sheriff at the time was Bob Reid. Where did that $55,000 come from?

Was there a collusion between Bob Reid, Cuyahoga County, and City Hall? Was it purposely not put up for public bid so City Hall could demolish the property? Aren't sheriff's sales supposed to be open to the public? Under whose authority was it decided that this property would not be put up for the public to bid on? Sheriff Bob Reid? Ed Fitzgerald? In my opinion, this doesn't make City Hall or Cuyahoga County appear honest. Why not open it up for public bid with the hopes that someone would fix up the alleged "nuisance" property? The building had been there since 1917, and suddenly it's a huge problem and must be demolished right away? Nobody ever noticed any alleged building code violations prior to the demolition? I could not find any building violation cases filed in Lakewood Municipal court. The only case I found was from 2008 that had something to do with an occupancy license. Was the owner of this property given due process and a day in court prior to City Hall plowing their building down? It appears not.
Also, wasn't Bob Reid allegedly in collusion with Lakewood resident and Cuyahoga County Judge John P. O'Donnell? Wasn't he accused of colluding with O'Donnell to allegedly steal the homes of African-Americans, deflate the value without doing required inspections, and selling the allegedly stolen house to friends for very low prices?

See http://realneo.us/content/cuyahoga-judg ... te-casesse

This reminds me of another property that City Hall allegedly stole from a 70 year-old lady named Marie on Westlake Ave. City Hall got the property through a sheriff's sale for $0. Why it was a sheriff's sale is a mystery to me, as Marie appeared to be payed up on property taxes and the mortgage appeared to be paid off. This sheriff's auction also was never put up for public bidding. Marie also was apparently never given any due process or a day in court before City Hall plowed down her home that she or her family had owned for roughly 51 years since 1960. Marie was apparently having financial difficulty already, as she had several small claims cases filed against her for not paying bills. Is allegedly stealing and then plowing down the homes of apparently financially disadvantaged seniors citizens City Hall's way of helping the under-served? I wonder where Marie is now. It has been posted before, but did Marie's house appear to be a nuisance?
Also, see this sworn affidavit stating that Marie owes City Hall almost $20,000 for "nuisance abatement" costs (i.e. the demolition of her house). How was a then 73-year old woman already having financial hardships going to pay this?
Another streetcar-era building on W. 117th, gone. It sat for how many years and nobody apparently bothered to write any building violation notices or file any building violation cases in court? Suddenly one day it's a huge nuisance and must be plowed down? 2 and 2 does not equal 5. Something doesn't appear to be adding up to complete honesty, transparency, and legality.

Take a look at this sworn affidavit. It says that the mayor's alleged friend that owns the now-demolished buildings at 13351 and 13353-55 Madison now owes the City of Lakewood over $60,000 in "nuisance abatement" (i.e. demolition) costs.
Also, it appears that the owner of this property also banked or otherwise did business with First Federal of Lakewood, another name that keeps popping up. Take a look at this release satisfaction document stating that the conditions of the owner's mortgage of $255,000 have been released. This document was filed in June 2012.
Remember how City Hall and Summers claimed that they allegedly couldn't find the owner of the now-demolished storefront on Madison? Said owner apparently did business with First Federal of Lakewood. Mike Summers sits and has sat on First Federal's Board of Directors for several years, along with several of his alleged friends such as Charles Geiger, Tom Fraser, etc. The owner of the now-demolished storefront also owns about six other properties in Lakewood, according to public records. Does anyone really believe that City Hall and Summers had no idea who the owner of the storefront was or where he was?

Does anyone really expect that the alleged Summers' friend that owns this now-demolished storefront will ever pay this $60,000 in nuisance abatement? What about that $76,000 in delinquent property taxes? That's a total of over $136,000 that this alleged Summers friend owes Cuyahoga County and City Hall (i.e. our communities and schools). Does anyone really think that our communities and schools will ever see this $136,000?

Everything surrounding this property and its demolition smells extremely foul.

Meet this property at 17450 Shaw. This was demolished by Cuyahoga County Land Bank and City Hall back in 2014. This one actually did appear to be a nuisance.

However, it is worth noting that the owner was summoned to court way back in 2010 for not fixing the place. He was put in jail and on parole for not fixing the place. This went back and forth in court for over four years. Meanwhile, the home continued to decay. Why did City Hall and Pat Carroll continue to play games with this guy? City ordinances allows for City Hall to take over a property if there is indeed a true, existing nuisance. Why did they play games with the owner for four years instead of taking this route?

City Hall has now demolished the property. Yet, the owner continues to be billed for grass-cutting fees, demolition fees, and property taxes. Where is this money going? My guess is, it will never see the city or county coffers.

It appears that City Hall fiddled while this home decayed.

Historical Day Care Center Demolished Without Due Process


Meet this property at 2070 Dowd. While it is great that a new house was built on the vacant land, I have some concerns about the process.

Prior to the new house being built, a vacant day care center stood on the property. However, in 2009, the Fitzgerald Administration (with Mike Summers and Kevin Butler on council, I believe) deemed that the vacant day care center was a “persistent blight”, a “neighborhood eyesore” and a “nuisance”. In 2009, the vacant day care center was demolished. Does this appear to be a “neighborhood eyesore”? Again, it looks better than about 75% of the homes around it. This was taken only months before demolition:

What is the big deal about demolishing some old day care center, you ask? You can read all about it here, but these are some highlights about the historical significance of the property:

http://lakewoodhistory.org/pdf/Newslett ... URSERY.pdf

One of the first daycare centers in the whole Cleveland area, gone, thanks to the Fitzgerald administration. Prior to its demolition, the building was owned by the Center for Families and Children. From what I gather, they were attempting to sell the property when City Hall bulldozed it? If it had been sitting vacant since 2002, why would City Hall not give a buyer a chance to fix any alleged problems with the building? It had been vacant for almost eight years and suddenly the property is this huge problem? For the record, no building violation cases were ever filed against the owner of this property prior to demolition. In other words, it appears that this is another property that was allegedly stolen without due process or a day in court.

If anyone from City Hall is going to rebut, please be prepared to do the following:

1. Provide documentation and photographic evidence proving that all of these properties were too far gone and beyond any repair.
2. Provide documentation that the owner was given every opportunity to correct the alleged violations before demolition.
3. Provide a reason as to why someone was not given a chance to buy this particular property and repair any alleged violations prior to demolition.
4. Provide an explanation for why the owners of most of these properties were not given due process or a day in court before their properties were taken.

106 Year-Old House on Winchester Demoished - Lakewood Municipal Court Claims Owner Cannot be Located

Meet this property at 1639 Winchester. This was a then 106 year-old home, built in 1908. The home was owned by a gentleman named Ricky. This house had been in Ricky's family since 1968. The house was given to Ricky was his parents passed away in 1997. In October 2014, Michael Molinski, City Architect and Building Commissioner, swore on an affidavit that the property was a nuisance and that the owner has been charged $16,448 for public nuisance fees. Also note that the affidavit states that the fee is subject to change as work commences. In other words, Ricky was probably slapped with a lot larger bill.
A building violation case was filed against Ricky in Lakewood Municipal Court on 5/5/14. However, the court claimed that the mail they sent to Ricky wound bounce and that they could not locate him. Really? His address is everywhere. House deeds, voting records, phone book, etc. Ricky's address was in Missouri. Also, Ricky had a criminal case against him in court and he had (and still has) a warrant out for his arrest. That makes it a criminal matter. Has Lakewood Municipal Court ever heard of LEADS (Law Enforcement Agencies Data System)? Since this was a criminal matter, couldn't the court have asked the police to run a LEADS entry on Ricky and find the address on his driver's license?

Does anyone really believe that the court was unable to locate Ricky?

This was the house in 2011:
This was the house in 2014:
I believe that Ricky was trying to do some work on it, as there were frequently trucks in the driveway in the months prior to the home's demolition. Why not give Ricky a chance to fix it? City Hall has been allowing a house on Marlowe to be rented now for months, even though City Hall says they can't find the owner. This also reminds me of the mayor's alleged friend's building being demolished on Madison recently. City Hall claimed they could not find the owner, yet his name and address were easily located on mortgage documents.

The house is now gone. The tax lien thieves now own the vacant lot. These are the same tax liens thieves that operate under about thirty different names and have all of their mail go to a UPS store. No worries however, they have been found. They are in the Oswald Center at 1100 Superior on the 16th floor.

Okay... so I plotted all the properties that Lori had posted on this thread onto a Google Maps doc to see if there are any visual trends that pop out. Judge for yourself. I'm hoping to add some of the research she has done on each pin so if you hover over it it will give the story.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-Eiob ... sp=sharing

Observers unite!

108 Year-Old Apartment Block Declared Nuisance, Torn Down by City Hall

Meet this apartment block at 1549 thru 1559 Lakewood Ave. In 2009, this property was declared a nuisance and was demolished by City Hall in 2011.

According to public records, the owner of this property, IB Acquisitions LLC, was never given due process or a day in court to fix the alleged "nuisance" property. Rather, it appears that City Hall just said it was a nuisance and plowed it down. According to Dru Siley, there was no hope of rehabilitating this property, and that it was attracting criminals and vandals.

If this was the case, why was the property owner not made to rectify the issue? Why was the solution just to plow down the more than century-old building?

This was what the building looked like in 2009, right around the time that City Hall declared the property a nuisance:
If you look closely at the first picture, you will notice what appears to be newer front porch flooring. Obviously, the owner was trying to do something. Does this property appear to be a nuisance or unsafe?

Again, any rebuttals should ideally have the following:

1. Documentation and photographic evidence that this building was unsafe, structurally unsound, and beyond repair.
2. Documentation that the owner of this building was given proper notification and due process to correct any alleged issues.
3. Documentation pertaining to who paid for this demolition, the cost, where the funds came from, and the name of the contractor.
4. Documentation pertaining to all police calls for crime or mischief at the property.

Jared Denman wrote:Okay... so I plotted all the properties that Lori had posted on this thread onto a Google Maps doc to see if there are any visual trends that pop out. Judge for yourself. I'm hoping to add some of the research she has done on each pin so if you hover over it it will give the story.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-Eiob ... sp=sharing

Observers unite!

Thank you for doing that.
A couple of comments:
Far more on the east side of town than the west.
There are no adjacent clusters, so any re-building/development would be lot by lot.
I want to know more - after the election, that is - about the situations of those evicted, who the buyers are, and what their plans are. And also, of course, what the land banks are and how they operate.

I have been informed that all properties were properly inspected, many years ago. But due process delayed their demolition.

Before any building can be demolished, it requires multiple signatures from multiple officials, including Fire Chief, Building Commissioner, Law Director and others.

More on this in an upcoming article.

.

Back in September and October, I posted regarding the demolition of a vacant storefront at 13351-53-55 Madison. As a brief refresher, this property was ordered demolished by City Hall, and the demolition contract was given to C&J Demolition. I recall City Hall claiming on more than one occasion that they did not know who the owner was and that they could not find the owner. A police report from a vandalism incident at the property back in June shows the police calling the owner on file (Nick) and the owner on file (Nick) saying that “he does not own the building/business and does not know who the current owner is”. See excerpt from the police incident report below:
All evidence I have seen so far points to “Nick” and another gentleman named “Bryan” indeed owning the property, as members of the LLC company that the property is in called K&S Development. According to the mortgage document associated with AFN# 200212190958 recorded on 12/19/2002 with the Cuyahoga County Recorder's Office, Bryan and Nick's signatures both appear on this document as responsible parties. To this day, the property (now vacant lot) is still owned by K&S Development, where Nick and Bryan are listed as members. The tax-mailing address on file with the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Office also goes to Nick's home, although the property is currently over $76,000 tax-delinquent.

I mean, if my signature and tax-mailing address were forged on a mortgage document, I would be taking that very seriously. If I get a building violation, should I tell City Hall “I don't own it and I do not know who owns it”? See what happens.

Now that the election is over, I have started noticing signs around town with Nick's name on them. Apparently, Nick is another house-flipper. Currently, Nick appears to be flipping several houses in Lakewood, on Ethel, Woodward, Giel, and Brown. If Nick is over $76,000 tax delinquent on the Madison Ave. property he appears to own with Bryan, why is City Hall apparently allowing him to flip properties in Lakewood? If his Madison Ave. property was such a nuisance that it had to be torn down, why is he being allowed to buy up more property to flip and make money off of?

Also, according to an affidavit associated with AFN# 201609190264 filed with the Cuyahoga County Recorder's Office on 9/19/2016, K&S Development (A.K.A. Nick & Bryan) owe City Hall $60,491 in nuisance demolition fees.

Why is this allowed? All evidence I have seen points to Nick & Bryan being responsible for the now-demolished property at 13351-53-55 Madison. Mortgage documents, deeds, and tax-mailing addresses. At this point, it would be very difficult for Nick or Bryan to deny that the now-demolished Madison Ave. property is theirs, in my humble opinion.

If City Hall immediately tries to cover this post up or derail it with their friends, should we assume that we need to be concerned?

A judgment lien in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court from 2013 clearly implicates both Bryan and Nick as the owners of K&S Development. K&S Development owns the now-demolished property at 13351-53-55 Madison. See my above post. According to a Lakewood Police Report, the police called Nick and Nick claimed that he does not own the property and does not know who owns it.

If I get behind over $76,000 on my taxes and abandon my property, should I tell City Hall that "I don't own it" when they call me, even if mortgage documents, deeds, and now court documents appear to clearly implicate me as the owner? Meanwhile, should I buy up more properties in Lakewood to flip, even though I owe over $76,000 in property taxes plus over $60,000 to City Hall for demolition fees?

Something does not smell right about this property and its demolition at all.

Since when can you just claim you don't own a property and apparently be relieved of all responsibility, even if all documents appear to implicate you as the owner?

I have noticed several homes in Lakewood that were owned by "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" or "Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation" (Freddie Mac) being given away to flippers for free.

I have spoken personally with Housing and Urban Development as well as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Both agencies informed me that never, under any circumstances are HUD or Freddie Mac properties "given away" for free or $0. If the properties fail to sell at sheriff's sales, the property goes back to HUD and/or Freddie Mac and they sell it on their own. I was told that never, under any circumstances, would they accept $0 for a house.

One person at Fannie Mae even told me that it sounds like it could be "some kind of fraud".

Why is this happening? Who is involved besides the flippers?

Lori Allen _ wrote:I have noticed several homes in Lakewood that were owned by "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" or "Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation" (Freddie Mac) being given away to flippers for free.

I have spoken personally with Housing and Urban Development as well as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Both agencies informed me that never, under any circumstances are HUD or Freddie Mac properties "given away" for free or $0. If the properties fail to sell at sheriff's sales, the property goes back to HUD and/or Freddie Mac and they sell it on their own. I was told that never, under any circumstances, would they accept $0 for a house.

One person at Fannie Mae even told me that it sounds like it could be "some kind of fraud".

Why is this happening? Who is involved besides the flippers?

Lori

I have spoken with Jim Rokakis, and old friend, who said that County Land Bank really hasn't done much here as Lakewood has their own.

.