Take Control

[James Mullen]

As a life long resident of Lakewood, a graduate of the High School and in my fifth year of owning a small business in this city, I have to ask the question, When is someone going to take control of our city? This past election we heard many of the candidates discuss things such as safety, redevelopment, taxes, and budgetary issues. My question I pose is when does the talking become action? Has Lakewood made strides over the last several years? absolutely, however has it taken steps backwards, absolutely. I have seen Lakewood endorse redevelopment projects such as Rosewood Place, Rockport Square, and The Cliffs, only to so strictly oversee the projects that they do not allow the developers to see the initial idea to fruition. Take a hard look at Rosewood Place. Mr. Barrett, has done a good job at developing that corner from a vacant car lot to a townhouse location with retail. From what I understand, Mr. Barrett had luke warm interest from companies to go into the retail spaces, only to have the city put a stop to it. Instead we received something that already existed in across the street in the Armed Forces Recruitment Center. So rather than bring a new set of retail stores to Lakewood, we Recycle an existing leaving another store front empty. Lakewood is a city in transition, and we need to embrace the transition and redevelop accordingly. Their is the opprotunity to make changes to the community and we need to be inviting to the notion. One topic I did not hear a great deal of discussion on during the campaign season was the Public Schools. We are in the process of building and remodeling our School District from the outside, is it also time to take a look at renovating the schools from a learning side of things. Our Graduation rate is not where it should be, our kids are not passing the proficiency exams at the rate they should be, and this also needs to be addressed. As times change we tend to so a great deal of talking about what we should do to change or help, but at this point it is time that committed citizens of Lakewood put their words into action.

[Bill Call]

Take a hard look at Rosewood Place. Mr. Barrett, has done a good job at developing that corner from a vacant car lot to a townhouse location with retail. From what I understand, Mr. Barrett had luke warm interest from companies to go into the retail spaces, only to have the city put a stop to it. .

I heard that the "City" wasn't very helpful. But I wasn't sure what to make of it. Not helpful in what way? Who was "the City"?

Instead we received something that already existed in across the street in the Armed Forces Recruitment Center. So rather than bring a new set of retail stores to Lakewood, we Recycle an existing leaving another store front empty.

That is a good observation.

The Rosewood space is very well done, is on a great section of Detroit and yet it couldn't be rented to a "new" tenant. Hopefully the new administration will have a real sense of urgency about the problems facing the City.

We cannot afford any more complacency. Things are not fine.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim/Bill

Rosewood Place. Tom had some issues, none of them related to the building department being unfair. The opposite might be true. When small violations were found, simple little things. The building department made sure they were right. One comment to me from Tom was these guys are real tough, not like other cities. Tom still loves Lakewood and is looking at other possibilities.

Armed Services - For a developer that spent a lot of his own money on a development, it is a dream come true. Even if it is a business moving across the street, you have to admit the recruiters office looks a lot better.

This will give the owner of their old building a chance to improve, and clean up, and find another business. I know of two looking at it. One is in the city already/ where they are at is run down and they need more space.

While I understand the disappointment, and share it. It is also a good sign that these businesses want to stay in Lakewood.

FWIW


.

[Dee Krupp]

Jim/Bill

Armed Services - For a developer that spent a lot of his own money on a development, it is a dream come true. Even if it is a business moving across the street, you have to admit the recruiters office looks a lot better.

Yes, it most certainly does!

[Dee Krupp]

P.S. Jim.....someone at the LO needs to change the time in the system. It's an hour off and you never know when an alibi will be needed!

[Jim O'Bryan]

P.S. Jim.....someone at the LO needs to change the time in the system. It's an hour off and you never know when an alibi will be needed!

This is addressed in your "PROFILE" section.

Thanks.



.

[James Mullen]

I am not debating the fact it is a win win situation for the developer and the armed forces. Mr. Barrett has a all his store fronts rented and they are good rentals, I think the Feds will make sure he receives his payments. I believe Mr. Barrett is great for the city and would like to see him take on more projects. This being said, I have been told from Mr. Barrett when I myslef inquired about the retail space, that the city would not allow certain "types" of business to establish there. They were looking for coffee shop type places. I believe lakewood has its fair share of coffee shop places. Obviously that thought went out the window with the Armed Forces going in there, but I also had been told a large chain company was looking at the space and the city was not happy with that kind of operation occupying the space. The same could be said for many of the proposed retail interests at Rockport Square. I as a citizen, business owner, have pride in what I call home and am ready to help in way I can to tackle the issues that face Lakewood. I hope more residents feel the same way. I hope the election results show that those of us who did vote on Tuesday are hoping the new elected officials will take the bull by the horns make the tough decisions and make change.

[Valerie Molinski]

I am not debating the fact it is a win win situation for the developer and the armed forces. Mr. Barrett has a all his store fronts rented and they are good rentals, I think the Feds will make sure he receives his payments. I believe Mr. Barrett is great for the city and would like to see him take on more projects. This being said, I have been told from Mr. Barrett when I myslef inquired about the retail space, that the city would not allow certain "types" of business to establish there. They were looking for coffee shop type places. I believe lakewood has its fair share of coffee shop places. Obviously that thought went out the window with the Armed Forces going in there, but I also had been told a large chain company was looking at the space and the city was not happy with that kind of operation occupying the space. The same could be said for many of the proposed retail interests at Rockport Square. I as a citizen, business owner, have pride in what I call home and am ready to help in way I can to tackle the issues that face Lakewood. I hope more residents feel the same way. I hope the election results show that those of us who did vote on Tuesday are hoping the new elected officials will take the bull by the horns make the tough decisions and make change.

I don't have a problem with the city having standards and rules related to the businesses that occupy spaces in Lakewood. That is the reason we dont have Walmarts every dozen blocks. I think a lot of that regulation is designed to keep smaller businesses in the city healthy and encourage more local businesses.


Personally, I'd rather see another coffee house than a check cashing place in a new space... and I like not having a Walmart at every highway exit along Lakewood. We need to have standards. I don't think they should be uber-strict and discourage developers (so much that they dont want to deal with the beauracracy of the city), but I also think we should not bend over and take whatever from some developer either because we need the tax base now. Actions like that would eventually destroy the fabric of the city and would be very detrimental in the long run.

[Lynn Farris]

I know many people are disappointed in the Military Recruiting Station moving across the street. I for one thought the old station was an eyesore and think the new look is great. Despite what people think about the military - if we aren't doing a good job recruiting - a draft will be discussed. I say recruitment is by far the better option.


The cost of renovating the old building beside Rosewood appears to be minimal and with some lights and awnings it looks incredible.

I believe we have a store front renovation project or at least we used to. This type of renovation needs to be encouraged. The building where the old station was needs to have someone in planning talk to them about the options available in getting a new tenant.

BTW, we had a building for over 10 years in Lakewood and the city never once discussed with me the types of tenants they wanted.

[Valerie Molinski]

I have seen Lakewood endorse redevelopment projects such as Rosewood Place, Rockport Square, and The Cliffs, only to so strictly oversee the projects that they do not allow the developers to see the initial idea to fruition.


To address this... believe it or not, most developers have their bottom line and money making potential in mind far more than what is best for the community they may be trying to occupy. I know... hard to believe. I don't begrudge anyone making money or a profit, but at the same time, like I said in my previous response, I don't think the city should give ANY developer carte blanche to do what they please as long as they stay within the parameters of the building code.

The city should absolutely be weighing in on set backs, street scape, design and how it affects the rest of the city around it. It should also weigh in and potentially be involved in what kind of use or tenants eventually occupy those spaces. Again, the city's involvement should not be so harsh that it is a total deterrent, detrimental, or completely unreasonable. I am not a proponent of design by committee either, but design review has a time and a place and can truly be useful to help maintain the integrity of a city.

[Dee Martinez]

, I don't think the city should give ANY developer carte blanche to do what they please as long as they stay within the parameters of the building code.

It should also weigh in and potentially be involved in what kind of use or tenants eventually occupy those spaces. .

But thats what codes are for. The city cant legally be in the business of picking and choosing tenants. They can use zoning to choose office over retail., or residential over factory. They can use codes to restrict Wal-Marts and even then they risk court challenges. But when a city decides it "wants" a coffee shop rather than a check cashing place on a piece of private property, all kind of legal alarms go off.

[Jeff Endress]

As much as I agree with the overall discussion, I really don't think that the city has much to say about who a developer (or any landlord for that matter) chooses to lease a storefront to. There may be certain health related requirements for food service/sales. There are certain parking space requirements for restaurants. But, beyond that, a developer/landlord can rent to anyone they choose. It isn't really an issue of the city "approving" a business.

Now, there is a different consideration if we're talking about storefront improvements, building changes and so forth. The city does have a hand in those issues. But as to the city either approving or rejecting a tennant, It simply isn't within the city's powers.

Jeff

[James Mullen]

Jeff-

That is excatly what it comes down to. The city has laid strict ideas of what can and cannot go into the new retail spaces being created in our city. It is happening and has happened. The developers at both of our major projects right now Rosewood and Rockport have run into issues with the city and the plans they have to use the retail space.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
I have been noticing that throughout NE Ohio (Haven't been other places lately) there seems to be a universal case of retail cannibalization. There seems to continue to be new development, but no/few new businesses. Just businesses moving. Case in point Target in Rocky River/ Fairview Park and new Target complex in North Olmsted.

The City needs some innovative store front renovations (like my wife already suggested) to fix up what we have. That is much cheaper and thus much more affordable for new businesses to move into.

That's probably my biggest complaint about doing anything with Kaufman Park. It's full. Like Towncentre it's not pretty but it is full. The very best we could hope for there in the end is having what we already have - a project full. But perhaps more attractive. Caution there though, I remember the downward spiral Towncentre took from planning to implementation.

[Jeff Endress]

James

Were these restrictions part of a quid pro quo for various concessions made by the city to the developer? I could at least understand conditional approvals based on intended occupancy of new development. But, short of that it just isn't within the power of a city to regulate to whom a landlord may lease their property (assuming legal purpose and zoning, of course).

I'd really love to know what those restrictions are, and what businesses have been told that they couldn't get rental space in the new developments.

Jeff