Page 1 of 8
auction of lakewood landmark
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:40 pm
by Ed FitzGerald
As many of you are aware, an auction has been scheduled for July 21st at the historic property located at 13405 Lake Avenue, at the intersection of Nicholson and Lake. Last week, a placard was posted on the wrought iron fence surrounding the property, announcing, in effect, that "everything must go."
This auction, would, in effect, strip bare this historic home, and would include the wrought iron fence, statuary, pillars- even the stain glass windows would be cut out and sold to the highest bidder.
Last Friday, I sent a letter to the auctioneer, Kiko Auctions, expressing my concern with the proposed auction. This morning I spoke with their representative, who informed me that i was "meddling" and "costing him money." He concluded by telling me I had "24 hours" to resolve this, shouted some obscenities, and hung up the telephone. I've been on City Council for a few years, so I'm used to that.
I have learned that this auction is being held at the request of the current owner, Otto Lombardo. In separate proceedings, the company holding the mortgage, Option One, is also seeking a Sheriff's sale of the entire property within the next 60 days. Basically, this auction would suck most of the value out of the property before the mortgage company can sell it at the Sheriff's sale.
I have been evaluating legal approaches which we could take to prevent this all from happening, including an injunction and stregthening our ordinances regarding demolition, auction, and historical designation.
In the meantime, a community meeting has been discussed for this week, date time and location to be announced. This proposed auction would effectively destroy a signature Lakewood landmark, and our community needs to continue rallying to save it.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:56 pm
by Jeff Endress
Ed
I, for one, would sure hate to see that gracious home gutted, the pieces-parts sold off, and the hulk left for....future development? It does sit on a double lot, after all. So, I guess the question is how can the city stop a land owner from taking unpopular (and downright destructive) actions with their own property. Its sort of the flip side to the whole eminent domain issue, though instead of forcing a non-willing owner to SELL, we would prohibit the sale by someone who wishes to. The common thread for either proposition is government interference in individual rights and I think we all know how popular that is. Maybe we need to have it declared an historic lamdmark. I suppose there might be some ability to restrain the auction if it would result in rendering the home uninhabitable; a de facto demolition (without a demolition permit). Is there a flip side to the archtectural review for exterior additions that would require review for modification by demolition or deletion? I fear that given the short lead time, and the strong public opinion about governmental interference in private property rights there isn't a great deal that can be done.
Jeff
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:44 pm
by Grace O'Malley
Had there not been a large sign proclaiming an impending auction, no one would ever know what was planned for that house and no action could have been taken.
The fact is that the owner has some control over the house and yard. Assume that when they bought the house they decided that the fence was ugly. Had they chosen to remove the fence and sell it for scrap, they would have had every right to do so. They could have easily sold off the stained glass windows, mantels, light fixtures, and other architectural features of the home without any interference. No one would have to know and no one could stop it.
Yes, its sad, but its happened innumerable times over the years, in a smaller degree, to almost every home in Lakewood. How many pedestal sinks, marble countetops, oak woodwork, brass fixtures, wood floors, old shade trees, etc, have been ripped out and replaced in the name of modernization and convenience.
BTW, in the late 70's, that home was remodeled and served as the Cancer Hope House. It was beautiful. The state of the home today (the yard and the exterior) leads me to believe that it has not been carefully maintained.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:40 pm
by dl meckes
I just spoke with Michael Fleenor of the Cleveland Restoration Society. They have been working with the Lakewood Historical Society to see if there's something that can be done to ease this situation. The Restoration Society has been in touch with the National Trust.
I'll keep looking here to see when a meeting will occur.
With so little time available, there may be nothing that can be done for this property, but there are steps we can take as a community to ensure that nothing like this happens in the future.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:30 pm
by Grace O'Malley
Here are some pictures of the house from the late 70's:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P27F1296B
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S68F1196B
Its not clear from the pictures if the fence was even up at that time. I vaguely remember it with no fence, but I could be mistaken.
That site, Cleveland Memories, has a ton of pictures of old Lakewood "mansions" that no longer exist.[/url]
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:34 pm
by dl meckes
Grace, I've used a service called
http://makeashorterlink.com/index.php to edit the URLs you posted. The long links were causing problems with the page display.
That house has gone through periods with and without fences, which is probably why it's difficult to remember.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:50 pm
by Grace O'Malley
dl
Thank you! I was searching for a way of making a link with a short text display.
I was pretty sure that house had no fence at one time. I'm glad you also recall a fenceless period.
That leads me to the original post where Mr Fitzgerald expressed concern about the fence. If the fence is not original to the house, or not even "old," then maybe the concern is overblown.
A purchaser of that type of fencing would likely use it on a property with an older home. Maybe even on another home in Lakewood.
A lot of homes in Lakewood that have been torn down have been the source of parts and pieces for other homes (think of the Belle Ave houses torn down for the hospital.)
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:09 pm
by Lynn Farris
I don't personally know this man, but my sneaking suspicion is that he is having some type of financial difficulty. It is a very lovely home, one of my favorites. My guess is he isn't doing this because he wants to, chances are he has to.
But is he doing anything differently than a person that comes in to help a failing business by selling it off in parts? That often hurts the people that work there and the community. Or how about when a developer takes a beautiful old mansion on the Lake and turns it into "cluster homes" not to save themselves and their family financially but for sheer profit.
I know of no law in this city that says you can't sell your garden statues. In fact, I believe you have to get a variance in this city to build a fence that close to the sidewalk, so he isn't violating any laws by taking this down.
Ed, are you proposing helping this gentleman out and if so how? I know you wouldn't want to kick a man while he is down, so is there a win win situation where the gentleman can escape his assumed financial crisis and the city keep this lovely home in tact?
Grace, I do remember when this was the Hope house too. It was lovely.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:18 pm
by Ed FitzGerald
Just to be clear, it's not just about a fence. Basically, the auction would strip almost everything possible out of the house. This includes things such as decorative pillars, awnings, built in cabinets, stain glass windows, etc. What would be left is a shell of what exists now. This auction is being proposed just PRIOR to a Sheriff's sale where the whole property could be sold in its current state. This is not a case of an owner just making aesthetic choices- it is a case of an owner eviscerating both the historic and actual value of the house just prior to its foreclosure.
Yes, many of the beautiful old mansions of Lakewood's past are gone forever. Should this one be added to the list? We need to make a decision as a community as to whether certain properties should be designated as historic, and should therefore be preserved. In my opinion, this property merits that protection.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:45 pm
by Lynn Farris
You are right Ed, it is a shame what has happened to many of the old mansions. Cleveland lost millionaires row and we have already lost many beautiful homes right here in Lakewood.
In fact my daughter drew this one and I have it hanging in my office.
http://www.lkwdpl.org/lfiles/savannah/ The picture is the last one on the left.
I sincerely agree with you that it would be a shame, but I don't see that he is doing anything illegal.
I have seen many beautiful homes sided in Lakewood in a way that removes architectural details. And in the name of modern features homes changed for the worse. But in less they are violating one of the laws on books with this short time frame I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on.
Have you talked to the gentleman and asked him what led him to this desparate act? Is there a remedy to be had? One of the lessons we learned from the West End is to talk to the people affected. Is it too late for someone to purchase this property as a whole for the price it will bring in the parts? Do you know of a willing buyer?
Good luck, I hope this can be a win win situation for the city and the gentleman involved.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:05 am
by Stephen Calhoun
Hey, maybe it's time to trot out the emminent domain gambit!?
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:02 am
by Shelly Gould Burgess
Oh my gosh, that house is so beautiful. It's a pity. For once I agree with you, Councilman!
I feel that we each owe it to our community to maintain and improve our properties to the extent that our finances allow. The owner must be in great need, but when you own a piece of history, you have certain ethical obligations not to destroy it.
(Mr. Calhoun, you beat me to the sick joke I was thinking of as I scrolled!)
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:11 am
by Jim O'Bryan
Stephen Calhoun wrote:Hey, maybe it's time to trot out the emminent domain gambit!?
Steve
Your eastside living is showing through! Please read the notes in this thread carefully. You will learn quickly how Lakewoodites talk without using the "E" word.
Jim
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:14 am
by Jim O'Bryan
Jim O'Bryan wrote:Stephen Calhoun wrote:Hey, maybe it's time to trot out the emminent domain gambit!?
Steve
Your eastside living is showing through! Please read the notes in this thread carefully. You will learn quickly how Lakewoodites talk without using the "E" word.
Seriously I would love to see the city of Historical Society acquire the property, through purchase. Maybe if we sit down with the current owner and find out what his immediate needs are we can put off the sale while formulating a way to buy the property. I know one of our advertisers would be more than willing to write the loan.
Jim
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:22 am
by Stephen Calhoun
The "E" word meant half in jest. I wanted to see what happened.
Individual property rights, public good, ethical obligations to owner, of owners, to neighbors, of neighbors...
I do note that where something already blighted might be protected for the sake of the owners, something about to be blighted incurs 'ethical obligations'.
Over here on the east side, the pointy heads term this:
wanting to have it both ways
***
So, not so simple a case. When I think through the vaunting of history, an idealization on the face of it, I wonder what categories of history and to what ends acceptable obligations due to history are posed.
This is to say that Preservation, springing from this idealization, (when in fact what history teaches is that little if anything is preservable,) can drive the cart while all sorts of other 'histories' unfold harmfully elsewhere.
Because this idealization is literally a projection and in this case it arrives after-the-fact, I'd make a strong case that the presumption of an ethical obligation is wed to this illusory idealization and not to any real ethics.
The answer is to structure historical preservation as a legal obligation at the inception of ownership. There is possibly some offence given to libertarians in this, (goodbye 'castle' ethos,) but at least it is clean and doesn't impose a post hoc, scrambled quasi-ethic on the natural unfolding of history and history's life cycles.