The Observation Deck

Always nice to see good Lakewood news above the fold.

In today's Cleveland Plain Dealer we see above the fold,

LAKEWOOD TIRED OF SEEING DOUBLE ON ITS STREETS

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1153643464324350.xml&coll=2

It talks about one idea that has been floated for a couple years now about turning double into single homes. Architect Cindy Stockman is the person I often see talking about this the most at LakewoodAlive and Realty Meetings.

It is an interesting idea, and is similar to one I grew up in and just witnessed around the corner from me.

But I can never seem to make the numbers work for me. Now those that know me understand that the only thing worse than my English skills are my math skills. Maybe someone can help? Bill Call you out there?

In this town it seems that doubles are generally worth more than the single they are next to. They also have taxes from at least one or two more people in them as they are "doubles." So we have to think the city gets more taxes from them. They also have more potential shoppers living in them, so that businesses would make more money, possible hiring more people or making it most cost effective to do business in Lakewood, because of our density. How does this address the big cry for bedrooms on the first floor?

While Cindy Stockman's drawings are nice, and do lay out a nice alternative for a person wanting to turn a double into a single. I am still trying to figure out why the city is trying? Of course the reason is to see if it works.

In the article Tom Jordan and Tom George are quoted about working to reduce absentee landlords and how to create incentives for landlords to live in their doubles. Which is a very good strong idea, and needed. They mentioned that they are also having trouble making numbers work, but keep an open mind.

The best part of the article was that Lakewood, our mayor and Building/Planning Department are willing to look at ideas, vet them, try them and then add them to a growing arsenal of items to get people to move into Lakewood or stay here. That is a good thing.

Back to my experience with this topic doubles into singles. I grew up in a triple that was turned into a single. My bedroom was on the third floor complete with kitchen, My grandmother and sister lived on the second floor, and mother and stepfather lived on the first floor. It was accomplished by leaving the hall way doors open! Cost was nearly nothing. Just recently I witnessed this and even a more amazing story around the corner, when a double that had been changed to a single was changed back to a double, also found out my childhood home was converted back to a triple. How? They installed locks on the hallway doors! Cost for the entire project $79.00.

The single biggest problems with Lakewood doubles and apartments has been low interest rates. Now that the Fed has them climbing, money is getting tighter, we might be blessed with the amount of doubles we have.

I would now also like to put an idea out for planning to look at. Something that is also being worked on by The Foran Group, bringing more living units to Lakewood. It seems that every time we add a living unit in this town we get more income tax, property tax, more shoppers for our stores and businesses. To me it seems like a no brainer. Expand the Gold Coast. Tear down some of the outdated units and build some REALLY BIG ASS buildings along the coast. I have to think 1,000 or more families moving into the one real LONG TERM success story in Lakewood would have to be a good thing for the economy, the city, and everyone else.

Any thoughts?



.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:But I can never seem to make the numbers work for me.

The numbers on a conversion don't make any sense to me either.

A well cared for two family with an upstairs porch is usually an attractive house. When those porches are boxed in the house looks awful.

Over the last three months 24 doubles have sold for an average price of about $156,000. (Not the $120,000 reported in the PD). The values are driven by the rent. With rents in Northeast Ohio declining or stagnating the price of the two family will follow. Keep in mind that every problem affecting Lakewood is affecting all of Ohio.

I am just going from memory but the last report I heard was that Ohio created a grand total of 200 jobs in one recent month. Orlando, FL created 40,000 in the last year.

An appraiser I know said 30 years ago the average price for a double was about $24,000 and that the average price 40 years ago was... $24,000. Stagnating prices are nothing new.

I guess the question is: What makes a community desireable? Don't say walkability or diversity. People mention those things to be polite but they don't care about either one.

There is a rental glut, Jim!!

The city of lakewood has more rental properties than it will ever, ever, ever, ever, ever need again.

This is not a cyclical economic problem that will be cured by rising interest rates or slowing housing construction. This is PERMANENT, STRUCTURAL problem.

The greater Cleveland area is experiencing meager population growth, and will not be growing for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the existing population is spreading through a larger geographic area (places like Mentor, Medina, Avon Lake). This leaves behind old houses that will be rented at lower and lower rates.

In an ideal scenario, the city could dramatically reduce the amount of rental properties in order to help remaining landlords get higher rents. However, there is only so much a city can do.

Mike

Problems with your statement.

Rental glut over simplifies the problem. We have a rental gut for many reasons.
1) Interest rates(this will change)
2) Population (this too can change for the good)
3) Crappy rentals. I see some really bad rentals as I driver around. Two
right around the corner from me we just nasty. They came up for sale
Deb and I looked and could not believe how 40s they were!

Now I have to say the inside the box thinking to you.

Tying ourselves in anyway to Cleveland is a dead-end. Lakewood has to chart its own course now. My opinion, ignore Cleveland, except the lot we will annex in the coming years. Whatever we get from Cleveland has to be "the icing on the cake" but we cannot allow it to be a recipe in the cake.

If the city were to sign on to the VAL, Lakewood would be light years ahead of all the suburbs around us. then people move to the city not to be near Cleveland but because they are in Lakewood!

Lakewood biggest strength, often said, rarely used to benefit is our density. "Most densely populate area between New York and Chicago." How many times have we seen that? But rarely is it leveraged into benefits for the city. While Urban planners are giddy over the chance to come play in the Wood. It seems that others do not see it.

If that is one of our pluses? Why not kick it up a notch. Can we go from 50,000 residents to 60,000? 70,000? Can we do it without manufacturing or commercial? Can we do it with arts, intellectual capital, and new technology? I always think, what does 10,000 more residents do for Waterbury Beverage? Crazy Ritas? Rego's? Barry Buick? Around the Corner? Bela Dubby? What does a pool of 10,000 potential residents and volunteers do for the library? the parks? the security of our streets?

I have no idea, but I think we always overlook the obvious, the easiest, the cleanest and for me the nicest. The best place to live, work, raise a family.

.

My thinking is, we as a city, should try to assure that ALL the areas are held to a standard. Since I've never owned a home, I'm strictly talking from observation, talking to people who DO own houses here, and my own opinion .

There's some GREAT looking single homes around, and some areas of streets in Lkwd are out and out astounding. Many streets east of say Elbur, between Franklin and going as far north as they do, have some grand single houses. Also some grand and great sized doubles. Yes, the land areas are close together but many of the houses themselves are huge, and great looking in design, albeit older designs. Those homes could be bringing in a great price, I would imagine, as long as each neighborhood would be held to maintain a certain standard of maintenance, appearance etc.

One of the doctors my family goes to, lives in one of those grand old singles, between Franklin and Detroit, and invited us over, for his retirement party.

While the house is elegant, yard superbly maintianed, and most of the houses on that street are equally well maintained...not ALL are held to the same standards as self-imposed by the other owners. That gives that street a "less than impressive" look, at first drive thru.

If there was a way to keep each street as pristine as it CAN be, I think, from a "wish I could own one of those great large homes vantage point", that many many more younger people would be moving into Lkwd by the droves, to get into homes like that, vs. looking to live in the far west burbs, due to the "try to get a house in Westlake or further west THAT big and elegant for that price" concept.

I might be uninformed regarding the cost and/or condition and price of maintenance, since I'm not an owner, but purely from the same set of "eyes" a new person to Lakewood would view those eastern streets, I think there is a wealth of untapped resources there, to draw people into our city, to get good deals on impressive homes.

Point: As we drive around the city more, on streets we for some reason have skipped over the last 30 yrs, or just dont have any reason to go down them, Im MORE impressed with our single homes, especially between Detroit and Clifton, and Clifton and Lake. (Footnote below)

My wife's and my dream goal would be to live NOT back in Vegas, been there done that. Not in Florida, or California, nor the Hamptons..but our own Lagoons. It's been literally 20 yrs or more since I've been down there, when my band played in the yacht club for some occasion, and my wife has never been down there, but it's still OUR dream.

That's just one reason why I can't see living anywhere else but here.
What can't you get here, that you can, elsewhere? Nothing, except farm land, and I need asphalt, so I'll pass on the sheep and chickens, myself.

Footnote: This is one reason I think some field trips would be great. There are indeed streets I have never had a reason to go down, and when we do, we are revitalized in our love for our city.

Mark

Mark Crnolatas wrote:Footnote: This is one reason I think some field trips would be great. There are indeed streets I have never had a reason to go down, and when we do, we are revitalized in our love for our city.

Mark

Mark

The Lakewood Observer will be having it's annual Lakewood Rally. 24 miles all in Lakewood. I wopuld suggest that you and anyone looking to learn about Lakewood jump in on this street race through Lakewood.

All proceeds will benefit the Lakewood Family Room.



.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Mike

Problems with your statement.

Rental glut over simplifies the problem. We have a rental gut for many reasons.
1) Interest rates(this will change)
2) Population (this too can change for the good)
3) Crappy rentals. I see some really bad rentals as I driver around. Two
right around the corner from me we just nasty. They came up for sale
Deb and I looked and could not believe how 40s they were!


.

Mr. O.

You know I respect your opinions, even when we disagree.

But I have to ask what factual basis you can make for some of your statements.

Lakewood is part of a decliningt metro area in a declining state in a declining region. Yes, for some people, Lakewood and Cleveland and Ohio will always be home and citizens have a responsibility to keep the city clean, safe, and liveable.

But growth? Wishing doesn't make it so. Even good ideas wither against the face of overwhelming sociological changes.

If "out of the box" thinking alone were enough to save a metro area or a city, Detroit and Michigan, for example, would be once again boom areas.

In my mind, the question is this: Is the focus on making Lakewood an attractive, safe, and liveable city of 45,000? Or do we chase our tails trying to get back the 15,000-20,000 residents the place has lost in the last 30 years?

Personally, and I understand reasonable minds can disagree on this, I don't see a major downside to accepting the reality of a smaller Lakewood. The issues are far bigger than what Lakewood can control.

A smaller Lakewood is, to mind "inside the box" mind, inevitable. But a smarter Lakewood is still very much within the city's grasp.

Joan

The only problem I see with a smaller Lakewood is that it becomes more expensive to live here.

I do not see where the quality of life and cost of living can ever be made up with econimic development, or turning doubles into singles. If anything we should be looking at turnung singles into bording houses!

While there is no doubt that we are connected to Lakewood on two borders, I still think working any "plan" with them is a dead end. Let them plow W117 and we will plow Highland Road. Speaking of what happened to the "Highland Road" signs, did we already give them our side of W117?

Lakewood is perfectly positined to be a very unique city. It has a chance to be the better of a whole host of "good enough" cities in the area. But selling the city short and turning our back on important issues will not help. Regionalism will not help. Voices and Choices will not help.

You know if you look at the hottest trends over the past 30 years, it is all in Lakewood. I think the hottest stuff for the next 50 years is also in Lakewood. This is not me being drunk on koolaid, it is crunching the numbers.

10 minutes from Crocker Road, the airport, and downtown see like a perfect location for a starter. But you know the speech, shopping, jobs, golf, fishing, freshwater...

Smaller is not wrong it just cost a bunch more. Money being tight, I figure it is easier to solve our problems with too much money, instead of not enough.

But let's split the difference, how about 20,000 trying and wanting to get into the space of 10,000! Now there is a property market we could all deal with.


.

If the region were booming, I'd have more to agree with you about.

It's not just the city of Cleveland that's going bust. The entire area is flat or declining. If Northeast Ohio were a growth area, I'd advocate making civic decisions that insured we got our piece of the pie.

But it's not growing. Even Westlake and Solon aren't really "growing." As an area, it's the same people just basically rearranging zip codes.

Where we disagree is the inevitability of the the shrinkage. I believe that, short of finding an element in the Lakewood soil that reverses aging and lets you lose weight on a diet of cheesecake, the population decline may slow but will never turn around. You, bless your heart, think there's a way to woo people back.

Now, you may think it's realistic to try to lure 20,000 people from Medina or Avon Lake back to the city. I just think it's better stewardship of our civic resources to plan for a smaller, smarter future.

If it's "smarter",it doesn't have to be "more expensive.' That's where YOU may be "inside the box"

I'm not as bleak as Joan. The area is growing slightly, but relative to the rest of the country, it is lagging and becoming relatively smaller.

Also, I don't believe that Cleveland is going "bust" in the commercial sense. True, the city proper is shrinking in terms of population. However, it remains the commercial, cultural and economic heart of the region.

There are still tens of thousands of folks that work good-paying jobs in the city, including the law, banking and medical industries. And the entertainment and sports venues cannot be replicated. Crocker Park and the rest of these exurbs will never match the city's economic might. (Even my worktown, Mayfield, with mighty Progressive, pales compared to the city) Our nearby location to the city has always been and will continue to be a plus.

However, as Joan and I have both pointed out, residentially speaking people are spreading out over a wider area.

That is why we will never, ever need all those rental units again.

It's not a bad thing. In fact, I think a leaner, meaner Lakewood would be great if we could cut down on the rental units.

Mike

Now I understand why Doug thinks this is a hateful forum to renters.

When have I ever said do not replace doubles? I just cannot make the math work for double to single. Doesn't even make that a bad plan, Cindy Stockman's drawing are really nice. I am just curious what the city's payoff was?

Joan

20,000 from Medina, Bay, Solon! Hardly, I am not going to steal from my neighbors backyard. I think we have found more success on the east coast and left coast. Lakewood seems to be a hotbed of smart talented people cashing out early, selling their Manhattan Penthouse, and settling for a modest $500,000 on the lake or in the gold coast, and living a less stressful life.

Think how you could make running a New York business from Cleveland!

.

I love renters. I was one of them for 29 years.

But the fact is that there just aren't enough of them to fill our units anymore.

If we could clone Doug and make 8,000 of him, we'd be all set!

Mike Deneen wrote:I love renters. I was one of them for 29 years.

But the fact is that there just aren't enough of them to fill our units anymore.

If we could clone Doug and make 8,000 of him, we'd be all set!

Mike

I would welcome many more Dougs for sure.

But you have to admit, current trends are ripe for filling rentals. Flat income, Americans over extended, and interest rates rising.

I know on my end of town, rentals are being filled.

FWIW


.

The increasing frequency of droughts and heat waves will combine with the increasing cost of air conditioning to push more people out of the south. Fed Ex will go bankrupt the way so many passenger airlines are hovering near bankruptcy today. (they will try offsetting this by lobbying for more free trade deals to push down the cost of merchandise people pay them to ship) This will result in a reverse diaspora - people will be returning to the north, but they will already have been rednecked up. We will have to build a designated driving lane to Dave and Busters, perhaps even convert the entire Westgate Mall to a ginormous Dave and Busters Lifestyle Complex.

Building Big Apartment buildings near the lake is a sexy idea. It doesn't always work. The Lakeside 10 in Sheffield Lake has changed owners or Management contractors and names several times in the last 20 years. Last time I was in town it enjoyed the reputation of a "vertical trailer park".

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Mike Deneen wrote:I love renters. I was one of them for 29 years.

But the fact is that there just aren't enough of them to fill our units anymore.

If we could clone Doug and make 8,000 of him, we'd be all set!

Mike

I would welcome many more Dougs for sure.

But you have to admit, current trends are ripe for filling rentals. Flat income, Americans over extended, and interest rates rising.

I know on my end of town, rentals are being filled.

FWIW


.

Let me offer a few "flip side" arguments here.

While everything you say about interest rates and flat incomes are true, the fact remains that housing values in NE Ohio, as opposed to the coasts, have inflated only gradually over the years.

It costs at least $600 to rent a decent double in Lakewood. The mortgage payment on a decent house is not much more than that, particularly when you factor in the tax advantages. When you run the numbers, buying for most people makes more sense.

Interest rates have gone up, yes, but they are nowhere near the 13.5 percent we paid on our first Lakewood house in 1982. When interest rates go up, prices stagnate, but people still buy.

And that brings me to my last point. Home ownership is still very much an emotional issue, not purely a dollars-and-sense one. Owning a home still provides what Harvard economists call "psychic income."

And frankly, if she wants a house, she's going to get a house. Gotta trust me on this one.

Again, the relative weakness of the Clevelanbd-area economy means that while incomes are flat, housing has remained in line with income.

I'm up and down Lakewood streets a lot, and I know you're out there even more than I. Surely you've noticed the fact that the number of "For Rent"
signs outside doubles. And I'll bet that if you called 10 apartment buildings, you'd find virtually all of them have vacancies.

Is it a "glut"? Hard to say, but I do believe that the law of supply and demand is working AGAINST the property owner at this stage of the game.

I think Tom Jordan's comments in the PD article bore that out.