The Observation Deck

How is Lakewood doing in the abandoned houses category? How many truely abandoned houses are there ? How many were there last year? How many have been torn down? How does Lakewood compare in addressing these properties to other communities?

Hello, John.

I have some informal numbers but look to hold a Housing Committee hearing(s) in February and/or March to get some solid answers. I've already scheduled a 30-minute hearing for February 6 to discuss some other matters.

Please stay tuned and know I will do my best to report back to the OD.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Councilman, Ward 1
216-789-6463

john crino wrote:How is Lakewood doing in the abandoned houses category? How many truely abandoned houses are there ? How many were there last year? How many have been torn down? How does Lakewood compare in addressing these properties to other communities?

John

Last numbers I saw, were for 62 homes to come down. One less than East Cleveland, which
appears more and more like our sister city.

But lets wait for Councilman Anderson to get back with real numbers after his meeting.

What always worries me is that cities tend to talk about these like supply and demand,
instead of "damn, we dropped the ball." They tear them down to decrease housing stock
thereby making our housing stock more valuable. As if the only homes in the area are in
Lakewood.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:But lets wait for Councilman Anderson to get back with real numbers after his meeting.

What always worries me is that cities tend to talk about these like supply and demand,
instead of "damn, we dropped the ball." They tear them down to decrease housing stock
thereby making our housing stock more valuable. As if the only homes in the area are in
Lakewood.

At one time NEO provided information on vacancies for cities in Northeast Ohio. The information for 2011 has been purged from their system. I'm not sure why.

You can't ignore supply and demand. Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland and the State of Ohio and the Federal Government are expanding programs in the Cleveland area to increase the supply of housing. That would only make sense if the popluation were increasing. Since the population is decreasing those programs increase vacancies, decrease property values and empty existing neighborhoods. That seems silly to me but I don't have a degree in urban planning.

For a City like Lakewood that means the Gold Coast and apartments along Lake Avenue must compete with taxpayer subsidized apartments downtown and at Crocker Park.

Units in one very nice Lakewood Condo are selling for $15,000. Actually I should say they are for sale for $15,000. Do supporters of taxpayer subsidized apartments think that a sign of success or a sign of failure? Or don't they think at all?

Maybe they don't think at all. Maybe they just want to be seen as doing something.

Personally, I think spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move people from one neighorhood to another is a bad decision. In case they don't get it I'll spell it out.

IF
population is declining
AND
you offer subsidies for new housing
the occupants of that new housing
LEAVE
a house
in an exsiting neighborhood
which leaves a lot of
VACANT
apartments
houses
cities

The End

Bill Call wrote:You can't ignore supply and demand. Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland and the State of Ohio and the Federal Government are expanding programs in the Cleveland area to increase the supply of housing. That would only make sense if the popluation were increasing. Since the population is decreasing those programs increase vacancies, decrease property values and empty existing neighborhoods. That seems silly to me but I don't have a degree in urban planning.

Bill

Lakewood is no different from Hinen's no I mean Giant Eagle, no I mean Food Rite, no I
mean Moon's...

A person does not come to Lakewood to get merely a house. They can go to Westpark,
River, Fairview... We do not live in a vacuum. We could tear down every house in
Lakewood, and it would not have the same impact as SAFE, CLEAN, FUN, AFFORDABLE, SCHOOLS, etc.

So then the question is, Sitting in an area that is in decline, how many homes do we need
to tear down to make the ones left more valuable. So that the $15,000 Condo, goes for
$100,000 again? Yeah sounds pretty foolish when the equation for success is run that way.

The county has more than enough people to fill Lakewood. We WERE rated best suburb,
which has some clout. We have "nightlife" which has some clout. But I fear we have
squandered that and more. Now it seems we are rushing to the bottom and breakneck
speed. What is the upside, seriously, to announce the day after East Cleveland brags that
they have to tear down 63 homes, and we brag we HAVE TO TEAR DOWN 62?! "Hey
Honey, let's check out Lakewood, they are one house better than East Cleveland!"

The city is 86% filled. It would seem far easier, and cheaper to find like minded people,
especially when you are the pretty girl at the dance.

But now we have armed robbery, stand-offs, drug and gang shootings, and our own little
crime factory. We are eager to bring in people that move here not by choice, but because
they sponsoring organization, tells them. "This is where you have to live, the housing is
cheap there." WTF! Really? "Don't feel bad we have been stashing people just like you for years."

Bill Call wrote:For a City like Lakewood that means the Gold Coast and apartments along Lake Avenue must compete with taxpayer subsidized apartments downtown and at Crocker Park.

Bill, if you think we are competing with Crocker Park for those people, then chuck it in.
Lakewood, I hope, will never be "above the mall." People that have to live above the mall
should get their asses out there right now, or in any of the hundreds of crappy mall
developments around. Live in hell, but at least the Coach store is right over there! No
Lakewood sucks, we are on the Lake, we have nice semi-safe yards, good schools, and
you might bike not just walk to where you are going. I do not see where we can compete.
I do not see why we would even want to compete with that! Oh the horror, we didn't get
those 1,000 people. OK, that still leaves about 1 million to try for.

I maintain, running a city is not that tough. Look at the people that have done it over the
decades. Not just here, but elsewhere. A city's goal should be to provide services, and
those services should make the city safe and clean. When a city fails to perform those
simple tasks, it has failed. When a city takes it eyes off the housing ball for so long you
have to set up fire walls of empty homes. It has failed. When a city cares more about the
14% it could attract instead of the 86% there now, it has failed. When a city concentrates
on cutting services instead of looking at new out of the box ways to fund a city, it has
failed. When a city switches to managing decline, it has failed.

From what I have always seen, this city has everything it needs to be where it was without
a complete overhaul. But ALL civic leaders need a different mindset.

Bill Call wrote:Maybe they don't think at all. Maybe they just want to be seen as doing something.

And this is when simple stupid mistakes are made, that compound and create nightmares.

What if the money that went to "5 Guys," remember how the city and LakewoodAlive
saved Lakewood by attracting 5 Guys' cooperate offices? It is our Jacob's Field, Rock
and Roll Hall of Fame, Browns Stadium, Medical Mart, Of course later we find out it
was all the landlord desperately looking for a tenant that approached 5 Guys. But why
rain on that week of rewarding each other multiple awards for our 125th burger place.
But what if that money had been used in housing? Would we now be tearing down 30
homes instead of 60? What if instead of putting hundreds of banners throughout the year
at a cost of over $100 each, we invested in neighborhoods? What if instead of pouring
millions into "DowntowN" we had put it into police, housing, etc?*

No Lakewood took their eye off the ball for some shiny object in the bushes that has
turned out to be tin foil from a fast food burger.

Bill Call wrote:IF
population is declining
AND
you offer subsidies for new housing
the occupants of that new housing
LEAVE
a house
in an exsiting neighborhood
which leaves a lot of
VACANT
apartments
houses
cities

The End

Unless you can offer more, like a safe, clean, fun area with good schools, parks, fishing,
golf, horseback riding, boating, in an area of like minded people that love to get together
and create fun.

Because let's be honest, our real battle is not attracting new residents. NO, our real fight
is to stop the 86% from fleeing.

Does the city understand that?

NO.

* For the two new burger places opening this year, do not get me wrong, we love burgers.
We just need more places so we can eat a different one everyday. Hang in there, and you
might want to accept foodstamps, because the city is working just as hard on increasing
that population as it is in finding more burger places. (Food stamps do not mean "black"
in this case it really means people living on food stamps. Which is not hideous, we all have
tough periods of our lives. If you live and Lakewood and are on food stamps, do not worry
you are now a REAL LAKEWOODITE.)

.

How does a city go about putting money into housing? Just curious.

Mike Coleman wrote:How does a city go about putting money into housing? Just curious.

Mike

How about through the same public programs LakewoodAlive has been using so effectively?

How about by forming co-ops as was laid out in the VAL?

How about will bulk purchases?

How about in proactive inspections?

How about with effective block watches that do more that bake sales, block parties, and
looking out windows?

How about with very proactive community pride programs?

And that is merely off the top of my head while sitting at a boring meeting.

.

http://www.cuyahogalandbank.org/propert ... nicipality

Thought this may help you John.

Shawn Juris wrote:http://www.cuyahogalandbank.org/properties.php?order=municipality

Thought this may help you John.

Thanks. Will check it out.
By the way doesn't Lakewood have more houses than East Cleveland? Since we are comparing the two.

John,
Glad to read that you picked up on that.

Shawn Juris wrote:John,
Glad to read that you picked up on that.

Shawn/John

Who was comparing Lakewood to East Cleveland?

This is absurd.

Shawn, trying to push this into a numbers game is nothing short of underwhelming.

My comment was. East Cleveland announces 63 tear downs, the next day Lakewood
announces 62. I am in both cities, I am not comparing them I don't have to. John is from
the Eastside, and has been through East Cleveland, I am sure he knows the difference.
Shawn, I am figuring you have been to both and know the difference.

But what about the people looking for a place to move? Those who have not been to either,
and see the Google news blip on one, then the other. THEY ARE THE PEOPLE THAT NEED
TO READ THE STUDY. But by then they already have the comparison by the media.

62 homes to come down, do it, stop bragging about it.

Reminds me of the first time I threw my name is for mayor. It was not because I wanted
to be mayor. It was because, TV came out with a story, no one wanted to run for mayor
of Lakewood. Mike hadn't put his name in, and Tom Mulready and the Scene did a story
that no one wanted to run for mayor. Ironically the day before, national TV ran a story
on a city that was so bad, and so out of control, no one wanted to run for mayor. The
last 4 mayors had been murdered, and drug gangs ruled the city.

Now in Lakewood, I believe we know it is not that bad. But in a world of headlines and
sound bites, we had back to back cities, where no one wanted to be mayor. The day
after it was explained, why one city had no one running. Does it not make sense to think
maybe others, who do not know Lakewood might have thought we had similar problems?

Remember when we were labeled "The Gayest Town Around"? Perception? Remember when
we had three standoffs in one summer, and it became the city of wild standoffs. Until it
was pointed out it was the city where out-of-towners came to have wild standoffs. Is it
good for a city when no one wants to run for office? Is it better or worse for a city when
the outside media reports, "no one wants to run for mayor, in this inner city suburb of
Cleveland..." Is it wise for city officials to get into a bragging war with East Cleveland over
how many crappy houses we have?

Shawn, I see you have posted the LO Mission Statement please take the time to read it.
Take a copy to City Hall and share with your work mates. Maybe, they could learn
something. Then perhaps a couple of them could run for office and re-election based on
how good the city is, not how bad the crime is, like the last two times.

FWIW

Shawn

It just occurred to me last night that maybe the city is bragging about letting 62 homes get
into such disrepair the only way to save the neighborhood and the city was to tear them
down? Or maybe the city believes that if you tear down 62 homes every house in the city
is worth more, because of supply and demand?

I am not sure this is possible. I had lunch with Jimmy Rokakis and Leah Whidden from the
Western Reserve Land Conservancy, part of the Cuyahoga Land Bank. It was the day he
went on 60 Minutes, and was talking about that experience and how great it is to get
people in need into homes in Lakewood and the number of tear downs in the county, and
that that would tighten up the market and make it more appealing.

My question was, how does it tighten up the market and/or make Cleveland/Lakewood more
appealing if we go on TV and tell the country, we are not only at the bottom of the list but
we tore down hundreds of homes to make our numbers look better? Move here please.

They mentioned their group land banks torn down homes and turns them into green space.
Which I thought was pretty noble, but still generates the hillbilly smile of Central Avenue,
East Cleveland, Glenville, etc. I asked, "And all of these pocket parks stay pocket parks.
And he mentioned they could, or if suitable economic development could be found they
could be developed too, as they are not opposed to development. Which means it is just
regular land banking with a green slant when needed to shut up the hippies.

To me all of this is like calling melted cheese in a bowl, fondue one year and Queso Blanco
the next. While it must be nice to have green space instead of standing tributes to failure,
how does it serve the community again?


.

Jim,
It would be tremendously helpful if you could cite the source and context of this claim about 62 houses. I'd be very interested in who was bragging, as you put it. Some housing may need to come down, but that is only after it's determined that they cannot be rehabbed. There's also an important distinction between abandoned and severely deficient building conditions that would merit consideration of demolition. An abandoned house could be structurally perfect and would likely be an easy transfer. A home that is occupied by someone who willfully neglects it would be far more challenging.

Just so I can understand as well, are you mad at Rokakis for going on 60 Minutes or the local leadership that is currently implementing its strategy to maintain housing in Lakewood. If you truly don't know what has been going on over the past several months in this area, I'd be happy to brief you on it. In fact, just stop in to the Housing Meeting that Councilman Anderson referenced. Director Siley presented the update (which will be shown again for Housing) at the Planning Commmission last week and I think it sums things up well.

Shawn Juris wrote:Jim,
It would be tremendously helpful if you could cite the source and context of this claim about 62 houses. I'd be very interested in who was bragging, as you put it. Some housing may need to come down, but that is only after it's determined that they cannot be rehabbed. There's also an important distinction between abandoned and severely deficient building conditions that would merit consideration of demolition. An abandoned house could be structurally perfect and would likely be an easy transfer. A home that is occupied by someone who willfully neglects it would be far more challenging.

Just so I can understand as well, are you mad at Rokakis for going on 60 Minutes or the local leadership that is currently implementing its strategy to maintain housing in Lakewood. If you truly don't know what has been going on over the past several months in this area, I'd be happy to brief you on it. In fact, just stop in to the Housing Meeting that Councilman Anderson referenced. Director Siley presented the update (which will be shown again for Housing) at the Planning Commmission last week and I think it sums things up well.

Shawn

In production but will track down the quote. I believe it was PD attributed to the mayor.
Again, not just the "bragging/announcement" but the timing was hideous.

Mad at Jimmy Rokakis? Hardly, have known him for years, and his wife. Has helped the
Observer project many times. I question the sense of going on national TV and talking
about having to tear down so many homes, if you really believe in the supply and demand
theory, which he mentioned. Other news that week, we were no longer the worst city in
America, we were the third worst. Timing, conversation, PR.

I also question the concept of of less is better. We had 5,000 vacancies, but now only
4,000. Is a great sound bite. We had 5,000 tore down the really bad ones, and now
still have 4,000 slightly better ones, does not sound so good. Hurry get the last of our
homes before we tear them down! Is how it sounds, and can be construed. Again i might
make some kind of sense somewhere, until you advertise why. Perception is everything.

Shawn, you are a half full kin of guy. I give you credit for that. My message to others
running for office, is to follow your lead, Mary Louise Madigan lead, David Anderson's lead
let's not go through another election where candidates tear Lakewood down in ads and
on state wide media platforms, and ask for our vote. I hope we never see that again.

I know that quite often you and I can look at a Red spot and argue if it is crimson or cardinal.
I also know in the end, the readers will decide, and or join in, and we all benefit from that
discussion.

Thank you for your time, and willingness to jump into the "Mosh Pit of Word Jazz."

.

Thank you for your patience, John.

Twenty of Lakewood’s 36 “4’s” are empty. All 36 have recently received a correction notice from the administration/city.

If it is not common knowledge by now, please know the city has graded the exterior condition of all houses in Wards 1 through 3. (The effort to grade all Ward 4 houses will start in a few weeks.)

Grades
1=Meets – no visible exterior issues
2=Almost meets – minimal wear and minor maintenance needed
3=Needs Work – readily apparent minor and major violations
4=Significant Disrepair – Obvious maintenance violations causing a nuisance

This is the first year that this effort has taken place so we don’t know how many “4’s” were empty two years ago.

Lakewood has a few options to deal with an abandoned home that has significant defects and cannot be sold on the open market. One is for the city to acquire it, finance a rehab project and sell it on the market. This has been done six or seven times already with two more in the works. Preserving houses with reasonable investment stabilizes neighborhoods and maintains vitality.

Another option is to tear it down. While this may seem counterintuitive, it can be the only solution to eliminate the hazard, preserve remaining housing stock and keep a neighborhood vibrant. In these cases, a house would go through foreclosure process and become acquired by the Cuyahoga County Land Revitalization Corporation with demolition being coordinated with Lakewood. I believe about eight or nine Lakewood structures have been demolished in the last year plus. Yes, the city looks at these homes as well and determined that the rehab investment would be far too significant.

As far as the empty lot, the city’s preference is for the Land Bank to split it 50/50 with willing adjacent neighbors thus adding value equally to the two properties.

Roughly three percent of Lakewood’s 8,300 single family homes are vacant with the vast majority graded as a “1” or “2” and on the market. I am not sure how this compares to other communities.

Much work is before us as we look for ways to preserve and enhance neighborhoods.

Again, thanks for your patience.

Yours in service,

David W. Anderson
Councilman, Ward 1
216-789-6463