The Observation Deck

Lakewood City Council will discuss the fate of the historic Mathew Hall house at the next Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, March 27 from 6-7 p.m. at City Hall (ask the guard for the room assignment). The committee will discuss the proposed development that would demolish three houses for a parking lot on Detroit near Edwards.

There will be a public comment period.

Some houses aren't historic, they are just old.

If Lakewood is going to be a competative place to live, shop and work some old buildings are going to have to go. That includes residential and commercial properties.

However, I am not a fan of rewarding a property owner who has deliberately let his property deteriorate. The strategy seems to be create an eyesore and then offer a "solution" that requires a city bailout.

The Hall House qualifies as historic enough to save by a long shot. If you don't think it does, then let's bulldoze Nicholson house and the Oldest Stone house, because they're in the way too. Sometimes things should go, but not Hall House.

And, you are correct that rewarding the noncompliant residents with six figure city contracts not only bad policy, but downright immoral. That precedent cannot be set.

Mr. Schrimpf:

I agree with your points about public policy and morality on this specific matter.

For me it’s not simply a matter of commercial development and an expanded parking amenity, or even the preservation of historic property.

Broadly considering the many questions about code enforcement, public policy, the basic goals and standards for our city raised throughout these threads, we begin to see how the Lakewood Observer is helping each of us to advance perspectives on civic vision, community values, moral scruples, and neighborhood interests that must inform the organized framework of deliberation on this matter.

In short, alignment is needed.

I would sincerely hope that lurkers who possess whatever interest in this matter might step up and declare your principles in order to provide City Council with their measure.

Our city council is, of course, the elected body wherein the lawful kernel and moral code concerning the public policy that must guide action toward or away from such partnerships with owners who have, in effect, blown off the city’s efforts at code enforcement.

What is the example that we are setting, say, for our at-risk youths, who lacking the money and power to blow off the city’s enforcement efforts of any code or law that catches them in a deficient position, may feel like blowing off the authorities and responsibilities that must obtain in a lawful place.

I truly believe there is much more at stake than a simple parking lot, one that may serve, depending on those making the argument, a park or a punch palace.

There is also the opportunity to inquire as to the policy that the City Council has set to guide the Mayor and/or Planning Director toward or away from the pursuit of such partnerships with property owners who have allowed properties to deteriorate?

Is there any such policy? If not does the city need one?

In this case, I have come to understand that the property owner who owns a construction company will actually be paid by the city to demolish the properties he has allowed to deteriorate?

This may be business as usual in creative/destructive cycle capitalism that planning and development professionals are expected negotiate, mitigate and compromise. I really don’t have any idea.

As a layperson, I find such self-dealing in the demolition of one’s deteriorating properties paid for by the city to pose grave concern about the basic goals and standards of our city.

Yet given the situation some might argue that the partnership is the only fix available now.

What Lakewood is selecting to do here, despite the instigations of Chamber of Commerce types, goes beyond, at least in my mind, the pragmatics of expanding parking in a commercial area in need of more parking?

What is the city really creating here?

What example is the city setting for going about the functional organization of its authorities, methods and values– from Building, Courts, Planning, City Council?

Is the city really about to enter a partnership with a property owner who has ignored very codes and courts all citizens, rich and poor are all expected to honor?

Kenneth Warren

Another interesting tidbit of info in this is that the owner of the properties purchased one of the houses on Edwards in 1998. He paid 140,000.

In 2002 the tax value of the property was 85000. There must have been a request to lower the value as in 2003 the value was REDUCED to 63000!

How many homeowners in Lakewood could ask the county for a reduction to LESS THAN HALF of the SALE PRICE of the house and expect to get it?

As I understand the tax appraisal system of the county, recent sale price is a good indicator of the value of the property. After all, if you paid XXX for the home, you must have thought it was worth XXX. I know of very few cases where the county would lower tax value below a recent sales price.

So what went on here? How does this owner get away with paying less tax on his property than what he should be paying?

Why didn't the city catch this? It directly affects the city because it lowers the amount of tax collected. It affects the schools because it lowers the money collected for them.

How many of you homeowners out there have property that you've owned for eight years or more, and are valued at less than half of what you paid?

Was this owner getting special treatment? Is the city asleep on tax appraisal values?

“Always a little moreâ€Â￾ - John D. Rockefeller said it, in response to the question “How much money is enough?â€Â￾

Thus Grace O’Malley brings another important point informing the composite of “anti-socialâ€Â￾ features driving this Lakewood value meltdown.

Minimize community revenue and maximize individual gain. That’s a clear enough motive in the private realm. For the owner there’s little motivation for social responsibility in looking over the tax duplicate. Rather he figures ways to drive down the valuation to milk the property in any way he can.

That’s the private side of capitalism. That’s the expectation. Fine. However, it's not the grounds for a public private partnership, no matter how bad the Chamber of Commerce craves more parking.

Let’s face it capital is at odds with this Lakewood neighborhood; capital is colluding against this Lakewood neighborhood in the name of the Chamber of Commerce.

However, our community’s government, our city council, must do the job and conserve the integrity of its codes, values and the people who enforce and abide by them.

Otherwise we have before us the business template for obtaining more coveted parking. It's rather simple, and some may even think it's a practical way to get us through the destructive cycle to the new creation.

Have the city government play along with owners who will neglect property, drive down tax valuations to minimize outgo. Then encourage owner to partner with the city when the culminating points of frustration span the Building Department, Municipal Court, and Planning and Development.

At that point everybody folds their frustrated enforcement cards and high fives the owner for his powers of extraction. Pay up for improvements called the parking lot, pay him for the teardown, lease the lot – and call it a win-win deal of economic development and progress for the city.

Sometimes it's the simple things that matter to the integrity of a community. For instance, what is the message that is being sent in this value meltdown to the building inspectors, who attempt to enforce the code?

Ultimately, this is a test of people to see who holds the real power that compels the values and the vision for the city.

Kenneth Warren

I can’t think of too many other things (if any) which would be more important to our city than the ongoing investments we put into our homes. As I live in a city of homes, I don’t think I’m alone in this thought.

http://www.lakewoodalive.com/pdffiles/g ... elease.pdf


Rewarding neglect encourages neglect.

Mark Timieski wrote:I can?t think of too many other things (if any) which would be more important to our city than the ongoing investments we put into our homes. As I live in a city of homes, I don?t think I?m alone in this thought.

http://www.lakewoodalive.com/pdffiles/g ... elease.pdf


Rewarding neglect encourages neglect.

Mark

I agree, but let's not forget Lakewood was the city of trees until they got rid of them.

Lakewood, City of empty malls and even emptier parking lots.

Lakewood Ground Zero is class warfare and regional warfare.

The Rockport militia is ready.


.


PS - Are you sure about the pelling of your name? It always pops up in my spell checker!

Sent in by Pat Ballsch

http://normlslistings.marketlinx.com/Se ... y=11710415

I don't understand. Did Edwards Town Properties just sell the Hall House?

Grace O'Malley wrote:I don't understand. Did Edwards Town Properties just sell the Hall House?

Grace


I am not sure I thought it was sold about a year ago. Will call Pat in the morning.


.

The county records show the current owner as Edwards Town property since 1998.

As many of you are aware, the Department of Planning and Development (“Planning and Developmentâ€Â￾) introduced an ordinance seeking the authority to enter into a development agreement and allocate $150,000 toward the construction of a new public parking lot near the corner of Edwards and Detroit. To help clarify any misunderstandings, Planning and Development authored this entry to fully explain its motivations to assist with the creation of a public parking lot.

Planning and Development understands and appreciates the concerns stated by Lakewood residents on these pages. The City of Lakewood is an urban built-out community in which the commercial abuts residential properties. This connectivity makes Lakewood a unique and wonderful place to live. However, friction between residents and commercial property owners is bound to occur in this situation. Parking issues are unavoidable with any development project in Lakewood. Planning and Development is very sensitive to these issues but still must balance the needs of the commercial establishments with those of the residents.

The introduction of the ordinance is just the beginning of the process. The parking lot would still need to be designed and approved through the City’s Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board. Each of these boards are comprised of residents. For this reason, all care will be taken to provide proper screening between the parking lot and the adjacent neighbors. Due to existing City laws, the particular property that many are concerned about will still be provided a 180-day period before any demolition can occur after the passage of this ordinance. In the interim, Planning and Development has met with community members especially the Lakewood Historical Society and will continue to do so to attempt to address their concerns about the potential parking lot.

The Need for New Parking in This Area

Parking in Lakewood is a constant issue. The Planning and Development staff recently completed a Parking Study of the City that identified this area as having the worst parking problem. In this area, the City operates one parking lot located approximately a quarter of a mile down Detroit Avenue across the street from the Beck Center next to Cronies Bar. This lot only contains 25 spaces and sees high use during dinner hours. The few private lots located in the area between Granger and Edwards Avenues along Detroit were continually at capacity during the study. Planning and Development staff observed a significant increase in on-street parking during evening and weekend hours.

The Need for City Involvement

Mr. Coutris could possibly construct at least a portion of this parking lot without any City financial involvement. He would be required to provide a drawings of the proposed use for approval by the Architectural Board of Review during which officials of the City will continue to engage in negotiations with the owner in an effort to address all concerns. However, if this were not accomplished within 180 days a demolition permit would be issued for the affected properties.

The City in its Memorandum of Understanding negotiated that Mr. Coutris offer the Hall House in its entirety to the Historical Society free of charge. The City also paid for an estimate to move the house. The Historical Society was asked to identify a location and, most importantly, an end use that will keep it maintained. To assist it with these tasks, Planning and Development staff continues to meet with it and other community members. If the parking lot proposal does not move forward, there is no viable plan to maintain the property at its existing location.

If Mr. Coutris were to construct this lot without any City financial involvement, it would be a private lot for his use. By becoming involved, the City ensures that this lot will be able to be used by all the businesses in the area and the patrons of Edward’s Park as well as the new YMCA for overflow parking.

The $150,000 expenditure represents the most cost effective manner to construct a 44 space parking lot in this area of high need. Mr. Coutris is contributing to the development because he will need to retire several mortgages totaling over $150,000 on the properties that will no longer offer him any revenue. Working with Mr. Coutris saves the City the cost of acquiring the land from him or the high acquisition costs to construct a similar lot elsewhere in the area.

The City believes that the owner of the property with his background in construction can efficiently construct this parking lot. It is not that uncommon for the City to allow a property owner to manage the construction of public improvements on his property as it has with Rockport and other development projects. If Council desires that the City manage the construction of this parking lot, the City can do so without any impact to the budget.

The Terms of the City’s Involvement

The $150,000 expenditure is structured more as loan than as a grant. After the lot is constructed, through the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, Mr. Coutris will own the land and the City will lease it from him at a very minimal to the City ($1 a year). The City will maintain the lot and pay all taxes. It will be allowed to place meters on the lot to pay for these costs and to repay the $150,000 used for construction. Once the $150,000 debt is retired, Mr. Coutris and the City will split the profits and taxes on a 50/50 basis.

The City does pay property taxes on revenue generating properties. It will pay property tax on the new parking lot but perhaps at a lower level. The City will also generate revenue from the parking lot because it will be metered. Perhaps most importantly, the long-term viability of the remaining commercial structures in the area will also be addressed because they will have nearby, public parking.

For these reasons, the Planning and Development Department believes that any lost taxes would be very negligible. It is more than likely that the City will earn more from the lot than currently is paid in taxes.

Other Stated Concerns

Every public parking lot in the City assists private entities in the same manner that Mr. Coutris and the other businesses in the area will benefit. There is an additional public benefit beyond parking and removing cars from the streets. Part of the issues in this particular area occurs because cars are parked along side streets providing a large geographic area to police. By removing many of these cars from the street into a well lit parking lot, the City is providing police a much smaller geographic area to patrol making misbehavior much more difficult. Because the cars are located in a parking lot, it creates more activity in that smaller area making it more socially difficult to engage in unfortunate and childish actions.

Mr. Coutris has made a significant investment in the interiors of the properties that are the subject of the development agreement before Council. He also owns multiple properties in Lakewood and is one of our community’s larger landlords. The Department of Building and Housing has inspected all these properties within the last two years. It is our understanding that the only properties that Mr. Coutris currently has outstanding building code violations are the subject of the Development Agreement before Council. Mr. Coutris could continue his renovations and rent out the properties. However, he discontinued the renovation process once he began working the City to address the parking issues in the area.

Planning Development hopes this information will allow for a more informed discussion of the pertinent issues as the project moves through the legislative process.

Thank you for the clarification. What I still don't understand is why these things sneak in through the back door in Council meetings. Surely the department understood the ramifications of what was being done while it was being done, and yet it did it anyway. The city belongs to all of its citizens in one way or another, and many of us DO care about its history, and historic structures, even when someone has let them go to hell. The Historical Society is a component of the preservation-minded citizenry here, but not nearly the sum total. There's not as much left of Lakewood's historic structures left anymore as there should be -- we'll watching what's left very carefully.

PS -- it's also troubling that one of Lakewood's "largest landlords" is as absentee as many of our exurban double house owners.

One point of clarificarion.

Would it be Ms. or Mrs. or Mr. "Planning A. Development"?

***

I strongly dislike the exceptions being made to the post under your name rule here be it a business or governmental entity. Perhaps someone could assign the name of the author at least to his or her post.