The Observation Deck

Jim --

Great post. Sometimes your best thoughts get lost in insider talk I don't understand, but I'm with you on a lot of this. What we really need is something that brings in a regular influx of outsiders ... along the lines of what the University of Akron is bringing, but more of it. The city residents bring a certain baseline, but it's the outsiders that fill in the gaps and keep things vibrant, and even out the locals who fall in and out of love with different places at different times.

Thanks for all you do Jim.

Has anyone who sent an email or called the mayor heard anything back from him? I have received no response, not even an acknowledgement of receipt from his office, so wondering if it is just me or if others have not heard as well.

Matthew, remember the whole thing is just a rumor now, so we may be a little premature. Lets watch and see what happens.

Michael Loje wrote:Matthew, remember the whole thing is just a rumor now, so we may be a little premature. Lets watch and see what happens.

Well, it is more than rumor, since McDonalds has indeed looked at and is considering the property. It's just that they haven't indicated they are "serious" about it yet.

And I did receive replies from the mayor and my councilman, but that was two weeks ago.

Have not heard of anything formal. But, it would not hurt to keep those letters and emails coming, especially from those in the impacted area.
Incidentally, have not heard a single word from anyone who WANTS a McDs there. That says something.

Michael Loje wrote:Have not heard of anything formal. But, it would not hurt to keep those letters and emails coming, especially from those in the impacted area.
Incidentally, have not heard a single word from anyone who WANTS a McDs there. That says something.

I don't think many would WANT a McD's there.... however, I'm pretty sure there are people who would accept it rather than leave the area vacant for months or years to come. Just a thought.

And to one of Jims earlier posts(common sense and business savvy must be thrown out the window), I disagree with you. If you recklessly open a business it will catch up to you quick. Remember the cereal guy on Detroit? Unless you are independently wealthy and don't mind burning through money, the market will filter you out. Everyone seems to point to Barnacle Bills as a place nobody ever went to. I know for a fact that isnt true, because I myself went there three times. And I know other people had to go there too. Why? Because in the 18 years that they were there, the owners paid probably three quarters of a million dollars in rent just to keep the place open. A predecessor in that location, the Chuck Hole, lasted about two years. The relentlessness of rent payments, along with a whole list of other obligations, catches up with you.
Jim, common sense HAS to be part of any business plan.

And J, IMHO I would rather live next to an empty theater rather than a McDs any day of the week.

Michael Loje wrote:And J, IMHO I would rather live next to an empty theater rather than a McDs any day of the week.

I can respect that, everybody's different.

I'm also pretty sure others may not want to live by any alternative places to fill the spot.... so the important question is who get's to decide?

Of course I truly believe another empty building will "hurt" lakewood more than a fast food restaurant moving in which may improve the building and surrounding area. The worst scenario is another hilliard theatre on Detroit. I would love something else to fill it than a McD's.... are there viable contenders?

I rarely eat at MacDonald's, and I don't really care if they locate there or not, but I do care that some people with special interests feel they have a right to impose their own zoning on someone else's property, and imply that they represent the people of Lakewood in this scheme.

I think the property owner should be free to sell to anyone, and the buyer should be free to operate any legal business on that property.

If you buy a home that abuts property that is zoned for business, you can't logically complain about the compliant use of that property. You bought into the situation; perhaps next time you will be more careful. If you want to control the use of the property, put up your own money and buy it.

Will Brown wrote:I rarely eat at MacDonald's, and I don't really care if they locate there or not, but I do care that some people with special interests feel they have a right to impose their own zoning on someone else's property, and imply that they represent the people of Lakewood in this scheme.

I think the property owner should be free to sell to anyone, and the buyer should be free to operate any legal business on that property.

If you buy a home that abuts property that is zoned for business, you can't logically complain about the compliant use of that property. You bought into the situation; perhaps next time you will be more careful. If you want to control the use of the property, put up your own money and buy it.

Great points. I personally moved in to a house near Madison by businesses knowing full well what i was getting into and that changes can and will happen....so from experience I can say I agree with that comment.

As I've said earlier here, sellers, buyers, and the zoning people are going to determine what goes in this spot. But why are we objecting to it looking the best that it can look and blend in with the neighborhood? That is my question. Somebody please answer me.

Will Brown wrote:I rarely eat at MacDonald's, and I don't really care if they locate there or not, but I do care that some people with special interests feel they have a right to impose their own zoning on someone else's property, and imply that they represent the people of Lakewood in this scheme.

I think the property owner should be free to sell to anyone, and the buyer should be free to operate any legal business on that property.

If you buy a home that abuts property that is zoned for business, you can't logically complain about the compliant use of that property. You bought into the situation; perhaps next time you will be more careful. If you want to control the use of the property, put up your own money and buy it.

I don't agree that everyone near a commercial property should not be able to "logically complain about the compliant use of that property". Isn't that kind of like saying "if it follows the letter of the law, you have no right to express your opinion"?

Of course the property owner CAN sell to anyone, and the buyer can use the property as they wish if they, in this case, meet the requirements of the necessary review boards.

What we're doing is taking part in a discussion about our community. If some of us are biased by our proximity, well, that's just how people are.

Michael Loje wrote:As I've said earlier here, sellers, buyers, and the zoning people are going to determine what goes in this spot. But why are we objecting to it looking the best that it can look and blend in with the neighborhood? That is my question. Somebody please answer me.

Two problems though;

1. Who determines what looks the best (let alone best use)? What you think looks the best is different than what I may think looks the best which may be different than J Hrlec thinks looks the best.

2. There's still the issue that some people refuse to accept the fact that building may need to be torn down at some point. If the best use of space and the "best look" can be achieved by knocking down that building, I'm ok with that.

Michael Loje wrote:Bill, the Capital Theater project happened for a few reasons. First, it was located in a building that was already owned by an active nonprofit. There was great community support and involvement in rehabbing the Gordon Square Arcade and the Capital. Across the street, there was already a history of live theater with the Cleveland Public Theater. The nonprofit created interest among restauranteurs who have located in the district. This project has been quietly evolving for about twenty five years. We in Lakewood could learn a lot from this.

I think most of the opposition to a McDonalds is not necessarily the McDonalds (other than the drive thu) but the sense of a loss of potential for something better.

I'm sure the owner of the Detroit Theater would have been happy to sell his property to a non profit. Those dollars are not available for Lakewood.

All of the statements about Gordon Square and the potential for the Capital Theater could have been made about the Detroit Theater and Beck Center. There is only so much business out there. Next on the list for closure is the Beck Center. It simply won't be able to compete with the millions in subsidies offered to other venues, subsidies that are unavailable to the Beck.