The Observation Deck

Chris

Great statement.

Standing ovation.


Bryan

While I understand and in some ways agree with your thoughts, the fact is, every business steals from others that are there. In a down turned economy in an economically depressed region, one or two meals could be the difference between staying open and not.

The new Mexican place on W117 certainly has to be drawing some from El Tango.

However on the flipside, as you mention people will gravitate to where the food, service and deals are better.

It is all so very tough.

My problems, like the strip mall that was proposed for the WestEnd of Lakewood. Retail is dying, and it surely would have failed just like the mini mall in River that has much better access. Tom Jordan who was actually for the WestEnd project said a couple years ago, "The best thing to happen to Lakewood was that not being built. If it had we would have been $12 million in debt." Recently we uncovered documents that would have put us more like $25 million in debt.

Look at The Cliffs, proposed gateway to Lakewood is an empty dirt hill eroding away into the river. Common sense, and responsible delvelopment goes a long, long way.

This is why we need to look far down the road, and think not of Applebees, but what happens next, as chains have very little loyalty to a city or area.

FWIW

Jim O'Bryan wrote:This is why we need to look far down the road, and think not of Applebees, but what happens next, as chains have very little loyalty to a city or area.

FWIW

I would contend that alot of local places also have very little loyalty to Lakewood. Those that let their stores deteriorate, leave the garbage and litter out in front of their stores, or (mainly in the case of bars) don't try to be good neighbors.

The loyalty is probably more a case of cheap rent than any love of Lakewood.

Again, local is not always better. Business needs to work harder all the time to beat competition. And if a chain forces businesses to do so, I think that's great. If it causes some of the mediocre places to close, I also think that's healthy in the end.

If the new Target or Dollar Store were to cause the "Lakewood Liquidation Center" to close down, I don't think anyone in that neighborhood would shed a tear. If a national auto repair place put Calanni's out of business, I don't think their neighbors would mind.

If we're giving ovations, I would like to spend my on Bryan and Dee's comments. No offense Chris, you are certainly fighting the good fight but I'm siding with reason over passion on this one.

Jim, I believe that we discussed years ago some metric for determining civic contribution. The belief that a franchise is less civic minded than the locally owned business is a gross generalization and I seriously doubt we would find any causation if it were studied in town.

Chris, the desire or wish as you described it to have more locally owned businesses, the idea to encourage this over chains is a good one. But when we as individuals discuss what the collective city should do, remember that "we" are individuals and that the city is working with private business owners. I remember hearing about how Cleveland Hts blocked McDonald's from opening at one point. Well if all of you're at maximum occupancy, you can negotiate from a position of power. But if the "city" is being pressured by its residents to fill spaces then handcuffed because this chain is not good but this one is okay, but really we want this business even though there is no data that supports the feasibility or an interested investor available then we are sending a terribly mixed message. What are "our" priorities here? Who do "we" speak for?

Dee Martinez wrote:
It the city ACTIVELY does NOT want an Applebees, what legal recourse does the city have to stop it?

On what constitutionall basis can the city stop Applebees and approve Melt?

My impression is that, TIFs aside, this is private property developed by private firms.

You seem to put forth the idea that the Mayor or some other poohbah is sitting at a desk giving yeas and nays to various retail supplicants looking to do business in the city.

Please answer my questions with factual answers as you understand them. I really want to know what you perceive the citys "powers' to be in this regard.

I am not sure how it is done, but I do know that cities have stopped Walmarts from coming in. LaGrange stopped Walmart from abandoning its second built to suit store in the city when it wanted to close it down leaving two empty big box spaces and build a third. Ordinences can be passed to limit size and location.

Shawn Juris wrote:Chris, the desire or wish as you described it to have more locally owned businesses, the idea to encourage this over chains is a good one. But when we as individuals discuss what the collective city should do, remember that "we" are individuals and that the city is working with private business owners. I remember hearing about how Cleveland Hts blocked McDonald's from opening at one point. Well if all of you're at maximum occupancy, you can negotiate from a position of power. But if the "city" is being pressured by its residents to fill spaces then handcuffed because this chain is not good but this one is okay, but really we want this business even though there is no data that supports the feasibility or an interested investor available then we are sending a terribly mixed message. What are "our" priorities here? Who do "we" speak for?

I don't want to say that no chains should come to lakewood, as I think that is how I'm coming accross... (mainly because I'm pushing the idea of local business) but as the city moves foward, it is in the position to create districts. I'm not sure how many people have been to the South Side in Pittsburgh, but they have a uniuque developement solution. I'm not sure if it was intentionally set up this way, but, half of the are looks like a Crocker Park with chains and the other looks much like Lakewood with independent businesses. If we want to attract chains, it might be a good idea to see how that is working and if planning something like that would work for the city.

The most important thing is when the city and developers plan these things, that they take into account how it will effect locally owned businesses.

Shawn Juris wrote: Jim, I believe that we discussed years ago some metric for determining civic contribution. The belief that a franchise is less civic minded than the locally owned business is a gross generalization and I seriously doubt we would find any causation if it were studied in town.

Shawn

I am not so sure, nor I am saying that a locally owned business is more engaged.

Of course it is here and there.

My thoughts were "nationally run" not locally owned, has very little allegiance to the city they are in. Of course there are exceptions.


.

Hey, if anyone is out there from Applebees, welcome to Lakewood.

Now, let's get back to work ...

chris richards wrote:

Dee Martinez wrote:
It the city ACTIVELY does NOT want an Applebees, what legal recourse does the city have to stop it?

On what constitutionall basis can the city stop Applebees and approve Melt?

My impression is that, TIFs aside, this is private property developed by private firms.

You seem to put forth the idea that the Mayor or some other poohbah is sitting at a desk giving yeas and nays to various retail supplicants looking to do business in the city.

Please answer my questions with factual answers as you understand them. I really want to know what you perceive the citys "powers' to be in this regard.

I am not sure how it is done, but I do know that cities have stopped Walmarts from coming in. LaGrange stopped Walmart from abandoning its second built to suit store in the city when it wanted to close it down leaving two empty big box spaces and build a third. Ordinences can be passed to limit size and location.

The cities that have fought Wal-Mart have usually used zoning laws to limit the size of retailers. These efforts have had mixed success at best, because usually they are based on very shaky legal ground.

I cant think of anything that would be legal that would allow a locally-owned restaurant of 5,000 square feet but not a chain. Also, if I own a piece of property and the city would try to tell me I could rent it to Melt but not Applebees that would be violation of the 'takings" clause of the Constitution not unlike eminent domain.

I agree with Paul. Those who want to eat there can, and those who dont dont have to. Lets move on.

Aren't Applebee's franchises instead of chain-owned stores? Depending on the actual owner, the only money leaving the region would be the franchise fee and the couple of percent fees that go to the parent company, right?

I wouldn't be too worried about many more chains moving to Lakewood ... where would they go? The "TGI McFunsters" of the world like to have their own building and parking. It's one thing for a Subway, Chipotle, and Quiznos (all chains) to open up in storefronts, of which we have plenty in Lakewood, but the main family-style mid-range restaurants which we're poking fun at here prefer freestanding buildings. And Lakewood doesn't have that much greenspace to allow much more. They'd have to demolish a line of storefronts, which is quite possible, but it hasn't really been happening yet. So I think we're not going to be seeing Olive Garden anytime soon.

If anything, I think the storefronts we have in Lakewood are more enticing to new, locally-owned independent restaurants. Hopefully we'll see more, but I doubt we'll see a mad rush of the chains.

Creative thinking is what I see is the name of the game. Look at The Melt's success.

Mark Allan Crnolatas